Mayflower District Court
#state-v-nexuvz
This is the start of #state-v-nexuvz channel.
acerxtro 2024-09-23 10:39 p.m. CASE INFORMATION**
IN THE MAYFLOWER DISTRICT COURT FOR CLARK COUNTY
---
State of Mayflower v. nexuvz
Trial Type: Criminal - Felony
Judge Assigned: Judge AlbertWellesley - Courtroom 101
Complaint Link: Attached Below
---
UPCOMING COURT DATES
...
---
---
...
Comments
2Labels
Criminal, Felonyacerxtro pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:28 p.m.
acerxtro 2024-09-23 10:40 p.m.@taxi
acerxtro 2024-09-24 12:49 a.m.The following charges have been established under probable cause:
The following charges have not had probable cause established:
In order to charge someone with this crime, a player's position must be abused, "as defined by law" (1 M.S.C. §1302). Nothing is stated in regards to the particular law prohibiting a player from abusing their position in a way that fits with felony misconduct. I was also unable to find such a way on my own. As such, PC cannot be established via the AOPC.
COUNT TWO - 1 M.S. Code § 2304 - BatteryCOUNT ONE - 1 M.S.C. § 1302 - FELONY MISCONDUCTIn order to charge someone with this crime, a player's position must be abused, "as defined by law" (1 M.S.C. §1302). Nothing is stated in regards to the particular law prohibiting a player from abusing their position in a way that fits with felony misconduct. I was also unable to find such a way on my own. As such, PC cannot be established via the AOPC.
acerxtro 2024-09-24 12:50 a.m.@taxi
acerxtro 2024-09-24 12:50 a.m.
Let me know if you wish to contest my finding of probable cause for felony misconduct or make amends to fix it, or if you would like to continue with only count 2.
taxi 2024-09-24 12:10 p.m.@acerxtro No disputes
taxi 2024-09-24 12:10 p.m.
ig
taxiacerxtro 2024-09-24 06:59 p.m.
Ok cool. I’ll put out a summons for the defendant then.(edited)
taxi 2024-09-25 02:35 a.m.@acerxtro before you do that
taxi 2024-09-25 02:35 a.m.
Don’t you agree this is fm?
taxiDon’t you agree this is fm?
acerxtro 2024-09-25 05:01 a.m.
Did you or the affiant cite an iota of that in either the CI or AOPC?
taxi 2024-09-25 09:42 a.m.@acerxtro is it possible for me to amend the CI now?
taxiacerxtro 2024-09-25 10:55 a.m.
Go for it. I have yet to summon the defendant.
acerxtro 2024-09-25 10:57 a.m.
You’ll need to also have an amended AOPC to supplement it.
acerxtroYou’ll need to also have an amended AOPC to supplement it.
taxi 2024-09-25 10:59 a.m.
Why?
taxi 2024-09-25 10:59 a.m.
AOPC only states the events that happened really
taxi 2024-09-25 10:59 a.m.
Does AOPC really need to be amended?
taxiAOPC only states the events that happened really
acerxtro 2024-09-25 11:05 a.m.
You need the AOPC to link the crime to the action. The law enforcement officer has to testify and state that the actions of the defendant complete the crimes elements and explain how.
acerxtro 2024-09-29 09:47 p.m.@taxi
taxi 2024-09-30 10:48 a.m.@acerxtro wip
taxi 2024-10-01 11:11 a.m.@acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-02 05:01 p.m.
I will take a look tonight
acerxtro 2024-10-06 04:15 p.m.The following charges have been established under probable cause:
@taxi (edited)
COUNT ONE - 1 M.S.C. § 1302 - FELONY MISCONDUCTCOUNT TWO - 1 M.S.C. § 2304 - Batteryacerxtro 2024-10-06 04:26 p.m.
A deputy has been requested to summon the defendant.
taxi 2024-10-06 04:47 p.m.
Thank you, your honour.
acerxtro 2024-10-07 05:43 p.m. 
taxi 2024-10-08 03:44 p.m.@acerxtro update?
acerxtro 2024-10-08 10:20 p.m.@nexus Welcome
acerxtro 2024-10-08 10:20 p.m.
Do you have an attorney?
nexus 2024-10-08 10:36 p.m.
Sup
nexus 2024-10-08 10:36 p.m.
No
nexus 2024-10-08 11:19 p.m.
sadoimpacto
nexus 2024-10-08 11:19 p.m.
THIS MY
nexus 2024-10-08 11:19 p.m.
ATTORNEY
nexus 2024-10-08 11:19 p.m.@acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-09 03:40 p.m.
He has been added. @impactiii
impactiii 2024-10-09 03:48 p.m.
Yes I have been
nexus 2024-10-09 06:44 p.m.
Yes
nexus 2024-10-09 06:44 p.m.
Sup bro
nexus 2024-10-09 06:44 p.m.
U gon get me out jayoma
taxi 2024-10-10 11:26 a.m.@acerxtro Arraingement?
acerxtro 2024-10-10 07:54 p.m.@impactiii Do you wish to contest PC
acerxtroimpactiii 2024-10-10 08:02 p.m.
waive arraignment
impactiii 2024-10-10 08:02 p.m.
and enter plea of not guilty
impactiiiand enter plea of not guilty
acerxtro 2024-10-10 08:46 p.m.
Ok
acerxtro 2024-10-10 08:46 p.m.
Any pretrial motions before discovery @impactiii @taxi
acerxtroAny pretrial motions before discovery @impactiii @taxi
impactiii 2024-10-10 08:54 p.m.
why would i not have pretrial motions during discovery too
impactiii 2024-10-10 08:54 p.m.
isn't that the purpose of pretrial
impactiiiwhy would i not have pretrial motions during discovery too
acerxtro 2024-10-10 10:56 p.m.
do you have any before discovery
acerxtrodo you have any before discovery
impactiii 2024-10-10 10:56 p.m.
not at this time sir
impactiiinot at this time sir
acerxtro 2024-10-10 10:56 p.m.
ok good job
acerxtro 2024-10-10 10:57 p.m.@impactiii @taxi 
taxi 2024-10-11 06:43 p.m.@acerxtro
taxiimpactiii 2024-10-11 07:32 p.m.@acerxtro
I’d ask the court to take a quick look at the discovery document because Exhibits A and B are the same video from the same angle, by the same person, with the same POV, so under MRE Rule 3, one should be excluded since they’re just duplicates
"The courtmay exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of. . . needlessly presenting cumulative evidence ." Mayfl. R. Ev. 3(1)(a)
If you want a quick definition on cumulative evidence, the Seventh Circuit said that: "Evidence is `cumulative' when it addsvery little to the probative force of the other evidence in the case , so that if it were admitted its contribution to the determination of truth would be outweighed by its contribution to the length of trial, with all the potential for confusion, as well as prejudice to other litigants, who must wait longer for their trial, that a long trial creates ." United States v. Williams , 81 F.3d 1434, 1443 (7th Cir. 1996)
Again, I don't see the need for these two exhibits. The State will probably end up using one anyway, but just as a hypothetical, if we had to challenge the weight of one of these exhibits say in a motion in limine, it'd have to go to both exhibits since they're the same thing and that'd just confuse the issues even more
If they do end up using both (for some weird reason) then it'd fall under the category of "contribution to the lenght of trial" and creating the "potential for confusion" where the court would be asked to choose from one of two identical pieces of evidence in determining guilt or innocence
Simple remedy, as repeated above:keep one, remove the other . The State's case would still be identical to what it was before and there's no prejudice dont to them by removing one
... Or the State can just do this on their own
I’d ask the court to take a quick look at the discovery document because Exhibits A and B are the same video from the same angle, by the same person, with the same POV, so under MRE Rule 3, one should be excluded since they’re just duplicates
"The court
If you want a quick definition on cumulative evidence, the Seventh Circuit said that: "Evidence is `cumulative' when it adds
Again, I don't see the need for these two exhibits. The State will probably end up using one anyway, but just as a hypothetical, if we had to challenge the weight of one of these exhibits say in a motion in limine, it'd have to go to both exhibits since they're the same thing and that'd just confuse the issues even more
If they do end up using both (for some weird reason) then it'd fall under the category of "contribution to the lenght of trial" and creating the "potential for confusion" where the court would be asked to choose from one of two identical pieces of evidence in determining guilt or innocence
Simple remedy, as repeated above:
... Or the State can just do this on their own
impactiii 2024-10-11 07:32 p.m.
length*
impactiii 2024-10-11 07:33 p.m.
done to them*
impactiiiacerxtro 2024-10-11 07:36 p.m.
Good statement.
acerxtro 2024-10-11 07:36 p.m.
What objection are you raising in it?
acerxtroWhat objection are you raising in it?
impactiii 2024-10-11 07:38 p.m.
Basically, I’m asking the court to toss one of the two identical video exhibits since they’re duplicates and fall under the cumulative evidence rule (MRE Rule 3), so there's no point in having both in the trial
impactiii 2024-10-11 07:38 p.m.
The court is allowed to exclude it under that rule
acerxtro 2024-10-11 07:39 p.m.
Are you moving to strike or suppress
impactiii 2024-10-11 07:39 p.m.
I think you should make a determination and then let the state choose which one they want to keep
acerxtroAre you moving to strike or suppress
impactiii 2024-10-11 07:39 p.m.
Strike I suppose but it need not be particularized like that
impactiii 2024-10-11 07:40 p.m.
or categorized
impactiiiBasically, I’m asking the court to toss one of the two identical video exhibits since they’re duplicates and fall under the cumulative evidence rule (MRE Rule 3), so there's no poi...
impactiii 2024-10-11 07:40 p.m.
I'm just asking you as the evidentiary fact-finder to do this
impactiii 2024-10-11 07:40 p.m.
Since you also have the power to determine preliminary questions on evidence (like whether it's cumulative) also under MRE Rule 2
acerxtro 2024-10-11 07:40 p.m.
Mr PD, you are overcomplicating this and making more work for yourself
acerxtro 2024-10-11 07:41 p.m.
I will review the exhibits to see if they conflict w/ the best evidence rule
impactiii 2024-10-11 07:41 p.m.
Wait I'm not contesting the originality
impactiii 2024-10-11 07:41 p.m.
I'm contesting the cumulative aspect
impactiii 2024-10-11 07:41 p.m.
RULE 3 - EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE
Cause of the Exclusion of Evidence
(a) The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing issues, undue delay, needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
Cause of the Exclusion of Evidence
(a) The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing issues, undue delay, needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
impactiii 2024-10-11 07:41 p.m.
From the MRE
acerxtro 2024-10-11 07:43 p.m.
Which exhibits @impactiii
acerxtroWhich exhibits @impactiii
impactiii 2024-10-11 07:43 p.m.
A and B
impactiii 2024-10-11 07:43 p.m.
Like I said, since they're the same thing (cumulative, and under Rule 3 one can be excluded), the state should choose which exhibit they want to keep and get rid of the other one
impactiii 2024-10-11 07:43 p.m.
The court has the power to exclude cumulative exhibits
acerxtro 2024-10-11 07:46 p.m.@taxi Did you admit Exhibit A as a backup copy of Exhibit B?
acerxtroimpactiii 2024-10-11 07:47 p.m.
if it's a backup copy then they can't have it on their actual list of exhibits
impactiii 2024-10-11 07:50 p.m.
like if the medal link broke or the youtube link broke, you don't put a backup copy on the discovery pdf. you still keep one exhibit labeled. you just supplement if the link breaks but it's still the same, singular exhibit
impactiii 2024-10-11 07:50 p.m.
not two
acerxtrotaxi 2024-10-12 03:57 a.m.
Yeah
impactiiilike if the medal link broke or the youtube link broke, you don't put a backup copy on the discovery pdf. you still keep one exhibit labeled. you just supplement if the link breaks...
taxi 2024-10-12 05:35 a.m.
its called discovery
taxi 2024-10-12 05:35 a.m.
its my obligation to disclose any and all evidence i have
taxi 2024-10-12 05:35 a.m.
if later down the line the medal clip somehow gets deleted, you'll then be crying about how I didn't put the youtube link in discovery
taxi 2024-10-12 05:36 a.m.
and try to get that striked
taxiif later down the line the medal clip somehow gets deleted, you'll then be crying about how I didn't put the youtube link in discovery
impactiii 2024-10-12 09:03 a.m.
No I won’t dude
impactiii 2024-10-12 09:03 a.m.
You can’t put two exhibits that are the same thing
impactiii 2024-10-12 09:03 a.m.
Irrelevant
impactiii 2024-10-12 09:04 a.m.@acerxtro I’m totally fine with him having a backup exhibit if a link breaks. He can swap it out if a link breaks. But he can’t have two exhibits for trial that are the same thing
impactiii 2024-10-12 09:04 a.m.
Rule 3 is designed to prevent that
impactiii 2024-10-12 09:11 a.m.
Matter of fact parties do keep backups of exhibits when they’re digital in real life, but they don’t put two different exhibits if it’s the exact same thing. He can’t submit duplicate exhibits. I’m totally fine with him using a different link if the exhibit breaks but it has to be one exhibit
And that’s not just me saying that, that’s what the courts say in their interpretations of the cumulative evidence rule (which is designed to combat this exactly)
And that’s not just me saying that, that’s what the courts say in their interpretations of the cumulative evidence rule (which is designed to combat this exactly)
impactiii 2024-10-12 09:12 a.m.
You aren’t allowed to have two exhibits that are the exact same thing
impactiii 2024-10-12 09:12 a.m.
He should be made to get rid of one and keep the other
impactiii 2024-10-12 09:15 a.m.
MRE Rule 3 is pretty clear in its proscription of cumulative evidence
impactiii 2024-10-12 09:15 a.m.
Which includes duplicate exhibits
acerxtro 2024-10-12 11:32 a.m.@taxi @impactiii I will exclude Exhibit A under the Best Evidence Rule. If Exhibit B is destroyed, then we can revisit Exhibit A.
taxi 2024-10-12 11:36 a.m.
ok
taxi 2024-10-12 11:37 a.m.@acerxtro can we continue
acerxtro 2024-10-12 11:37 a.m.
Yes
acerxtro pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:28 p.m.
acerxtro 2024-10-12 11:37 a.m.
Discovery has closed @impactiii @taxi
acerxtro 2024-10-12 11:37 a.m.
Do we have any other motions
taxi 2024-10-12 11:38 a.m.
none from me
acerxtroDo we have any other motions
impactiii 2024-10-12 11:54 a.m.
Yes
impactiii 2024-10-12 11:54 a.m.
Can we set like a 48-72 hour pretrial period
acerxtroA deputy has been requested to summon the defendant.
acerxtro 2024-10-12 11:55 a.m.
Pretrial will end on the 16th
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:34 p.m.DEFENDANT NEXUVZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DUPLICITOUS COUNTS IN THE INFORMATION
CC:@acerxtro @taxi
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:35 p.m.
are you kidding me
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:35 p.m.
Count One is duplicitous because it charges both that Mr. nexuvz assaulted
notjedi0625 and that he abused his position of authority to carry out the assault.
notjedi0625 and that he abused his position of authority to carry out the assault.
acerxtroare you kidding me
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:36 p.m.
dont skim
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:36 p.m.
need to read to standard of duplicity
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:36 p.m.
a lot of people dont really know what it is
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:37 p.m.
top to bottom
impactiiineed to read to standard of duplicity
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:38 p.m.
the*
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:39 p.m.
im going to tell you this right now
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:39 p.m.
in order to find someone guilty of felony misconduct
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:39 p.m.
an element to that is the wrongful act (assault)
taxi 2024-10-12 03:39 p.m.
put the fries in the bag
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:39 p.m.
I am lost for words as to how else to explain that
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:39 p.m.
you need to read the motion
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:39 p.m.
do i need to prepare a notice of appeal already
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:40 p.m.
i dont want to do that because i know judges dont like when they get overruled
taxi 2024-10-12 03:40 p.m.
is this what u spent ur saturday doing
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:41 p.m.
it only takes me 30 minutes to write 5-6 pages so hardly
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:41 p.m.
You are citing
"protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal.acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:41 p.m.
How is this relevant to this matter in the slightest
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:41 p.m.
yes cause duplicity invokes double jeopardy
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:42 p.m.
Count One is duplicitous because it alleges that the defendant both abused his position by punching the victim and threatened the victim’s life, which are distinct actions requiring different elements of proof.acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:43 p.m.
Could you not argue the same if someone was being prosecuted for second degree murder and battery?
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:43 p.m.
Second degree murder alleges the defendant both battered the victim and also killed him!!!
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:43 p.m.@impactiii
acerxtroSecond degree murder alleges the defendant both battered the victim and also killed him!!!
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:50 p.m.
Well I see where you're coming from, but second-degree murder and battery are actually pretty different in the eyes of the law. Second-degree murder requires proving intent to kill or seriously hurt someone, while battery is all about the unlawful use of force
They each have their own elements and purposes, so it’s clear what a defendant is facing with each charge
In this case, mixing distinct actions into one count makes it harder for the defendant to know what they’re actually being accused of (battery and felony misconduct), which is why it's being raised as a problem
Also, the mere citation of the statute at the top of the count doesn't "save" a count if it has defects. Listing the count as "felony misconduct" doesn't save it either. The courts only read the "statement" of the offense, so like everything beneath that in the hodgepodge paragraph is only what they are allowed to read. That's where the defendant is "informed"
If there's multiple offenses (battery and felony misconduct) being alleged in a single count, then there's duplicity
They each have their own elements and purposes, so it’s clear what a defendant is facing with each charge
In this case, mixing distinct actions into one count makes it harder for the defendant to know what they’re actually being accused of (battery and felony misconduct), which is why it's being raised as a problem
Also, the mere citation of the statute at the top of the count doesn't "save" a count if it has defects. Listing the count as "felony misconduct" doesn't save it either. The courts only read the "statement" of the offense, so like everything beneath that in the hodgepodge paragraph is only what they are allowed to read. That's where the defendant is "informed"
If there's multiple offenses (battery and felony misconduct) being alleged in a single count, then there's duplicity
taxi 2024-10-12 03:51 p.m.
defence attorney try to litigate a case based on merits instead of random loopholes challenge
taxi 2024-10-12 03:51 p.m.
impossible
impactiiiWell I see where you're coming from, but second-degree murder and battery are actually pretty different in the eyes of the law. Second-degree murder requires proving intent to kill...
taxi 2024-10-12 03:51 p.m.
what are you even talking about
taxi 2024-10-12 03:51 p.m.
theyre two separate charges
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:51 p.m.
You did charge them as two seperate counts, but you also incorporated the elements of battery into felony misconduct for some reason
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:52 p.m.
That's the problem
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:52 p.m.
that is.. an element
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:52 p.m.
That's duplicity
acerxtroimpactiii 2024-10-12 03:52 p.m.
Also this wasn't what I asked. The best evidence rule is not what I was talking about but I digress
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:52 p.m.
Fine by me
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:53 p.m.
that is the only thing that applied
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:53 p.m.
If that were the case then the medal video is the original
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:53 p.m.
And the youtube video exhibit should be struck
taxi 2024-10-12 03:54 p.m.
yeah thats what happened
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:54 p.m.
yes so
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:54 p.m.
exhibit B should be swapped with exhibit a
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:54 p.m.
and exhibit a can be kept as a backup link. i guess?
taxi 2024-10-12 03:54 p.m.
dude its not that deep
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:54 p.m.
it is
taxi 2024-10-12 03:54 p.m.
??
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:54 p.m.
the original video will be used
taxi 2024-10-12 03:55 p.m.
ok so he got what he wanted?
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:55 p.m.
the backup will be suppressed
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:55 p.m.
if the original video magically becomes unavailable, then the backup will be used
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:55 p.m.
alright
taxi 2024-10-12 03:56 p.m.
I dont know why its brought up again when thats literally what happened but anyways
impactiiiWell I see where you're coming from, but second-degree murder and battery are actually pretty different in the eyes of the law. Second-degree murder requires proving intent to kill...
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:56 p.m.
You cannot commit murder without first assaulting/battering someone
You cannot commit felony misconduct without first abusing your position
You cannot commit felony misconduct without first abusing your position
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:56 p.m.
If battery is proven, then felony misconduct will be looked at
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:57 p.m.
If there is no battery, then there is also no felony misconduct
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:57 p.m.
There will be another motion addressing count two specifically
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:57 p.m.
Shorter
taxi 2024-10-12 03:58 p.m.@acerxtro is that motion denied
taxiacerxtro 2024-10-12 04:01 p.m.
Absolutely, there are years of precedent in opposition to this; battery is being used as an element to felony misconduct.
See State of Mayflower v. ParkRangerBilly (2024); State of Mayflower v. Kly_zo (2023); State of Mayflower v. DanyalPuller (2023); State of Mayflower v. Ieoisok, et al. (2023); State of Mayflower v. TrailDestroyers (2023)
See State of Mayflower v. ParkRangerBilly (2024); State of Mayflower v. Kly_zo (2023); State of Mayflower v. DanyalPuller (2023); State of Mayflower v. Ieoisok, et al. (2023); State of Mayflower v. TrailDestroyers (2023)
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:02 p.m.
The defense can try for an interloctory appeal, but the case will continue moving forward unless a stay is granted. I expect the Supreme Court to rule alongside this one.
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:02 p.m.@taxi @impactiii
taxi 2024-10-12 04:02 p.m.
thank you
impactiii 2024-10-12 04:41 p.m.DEFENDANT NEXUVZ’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF BRADY V. MARYLAND DISCLOSURES
CC:@acerxtro @taxi
impactiii 2024-10-12 04:42 p.m.DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE ADMISSION OF THE "MEDAL VIDEO"
CC:@acerxtro @taxi
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:44 p.m.@taxi Are you present
impactiii 2024-10-12 04:45 p.m.
can we do in camera vc hearing
impactiii 2024-10-12 04:45 p.m.
taxi 2024-10-12 04:46 p.m.
yea
taxi 2024-10-12 04:46 p.m.@acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:46 p.m.
Once you are, please respond with whether or not you would like a religious oath or a non-religious one.
taxi 2024-10-12 04:46 p.m.
ok
taxi 2024-10-12 04:46 p.m.
uh
taxi 2024-10-12 04:46 p.m.
lemme read motions first
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:46 p.m.
no answer now
taxi 2024-10-12 04:46 p.m.
why would i randomly take an oath
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:46 p.m.
because I am telling you to do so
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:46 p.m.
religious or non
taxi 2024-10-12 04:47 p.m.
religious
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:47 p.m.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god?
taxi 2024-10-12 04:47 p.m.
yes
taxiyes
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:47 p.m.
Have you disclosed all of this material via discovery?
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:47 p.m.
1-7
taxi 2024-10-12 04:49 p.m.
ive handed over all the stuff i have possession o
taxi 2024-10-12 04:49 p.m.
of
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:49 p.m.
Ok you are now released from oath
impactiiiacerxtro 2024-10-12 04:50 p.m.
Granted and completed, the prosecutor has testified that all disclosures have been completed.
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:50 p.m.
Is this sufficient
impactiii 2024-10-12 04:50 p.m.
Yeah. But if we do find something we'll bring it to your attention
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:50 p.m.
Ok
taxi 2024-10-12 04:50 p.m.
ill disclose anything i get my hands on but so far, ive disclosed everythign i have
taxi 2024-10-12 04:51 p.m.
erm that third motion is silly
impactiiiacerxtro 2024-10-12 04:51 p.m.
Denied. See The People v. adnannl5 (2023)
taxi 2024-10-12 04:52 p.m.
great.
taxi 2024-10-12 04:52 p.m.
are there any more motions or can we conclude pretrial please
acerxtroDenied. See The People v. adnannl5 (2023)
impactiii 2024-10-12 04:52 p.m.
Could you cite it because I'm not familiar
impactiii 2024-10-12 04:52 p.m.
I'm not in new haven
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:52 p.m.
"The mere potential for evidence to be editable does not inherently render it unreliable or warrant its exclusion from a trial. Challenging the authenticity of evidence requires concrete evidence and specific indications of tampering. The burden of proof rests on the challenging party to present substantive evidence demonstrating such tampering. In the absence of meeting this burden, the presumption of regularity prevails, allowing the evidence to retain its admissibility." The People v. adnannl5 (2023)
taxiare there any more motions or can we conclude pretrial please
impactiii 2024-10-12 04:53 p.m.
72 hours
impactiii72 hours
taxi 2024-10-12 04:53 p.m.
yeah but if you dont have any motions
taxi 2024-10-12 04:53 p.m.
then we might as well just end it here
taxi 2024-10-12 04:53 p.m.
youve made three motions already, jsut argue the case in court dude
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:53 p.m.
If the defense wants to milk the final 3d they can.
impactiii 2024-10-12 04:53 p.m.
I still have things to cover
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:54 p.m.
acerxtro"The mere potential for evidence to be editable does not inherently render it unreliable or warrant its exclusion from a trial. Challenging the authenticity of evidence requires co...
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:07 p.m.
what about part c
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:07 p.m.
any comment on that
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:07 p.m.
C. The Medal Video Fails to Meet the Authentication Requirements of MRE 11.
Rule 11 of the Mayflower Rules of Evidence states that “[a]ll documents, data, records,
videos, photographs or other recordings to be used by any party must be authenticated, such that
they are proven to be genuine in its content. Unauthenticated material may not be used.” Mayfl.
R. Ev. 11(1)(a). “One way to establish authentication is to show the chain of custody for the
evidence." United States v. Figueroa, No. 08-38, 2010 WL 2136566, at *5 (E.D. Pa. May 25,
2010). The State has not established a chain of custody in this case, in fact, there is no chain of
custody—not by the affidavit of probable cause or by the information itself. The Medal Video
simply exists without any further authentication.
While chain of custody issues "normally go to weight rather than admissibility” these are
abnormal circumstances. (citing United States v. Allen, 619 F.3d 518 (6th Cir. 2010)). See Mills v.
Dunn, 6:17-cv-00789-LSC, at *146 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 30, 2020) (Applying a ruling of the
Alabama Supreme Court that held "[t]he State must establish a chain of custody without breaks
in order to lay a sufficient predicate for admission of evidence.”). Furthermore, none of the
witnesses that will be called for direct examination by the State are chain-of-custody or evidence procedure experts and will not be able to lay proper foundation for the admission of the Medal
Video.
Rule 11 of the Mayflower Rules of Evidence states that “[a]ll documents, data, records,
videos, photographs or other recordings to be used by any party must be authenticated, such that
they are proven to be genuine in its content. Unauthenticated material may not be used.” Mayfl.
R. Ev. 11(1)(a). “One way to establish authentication is to show the chain of custody for the
evidence." United States v. Figueroa, No. 08-38, 2010 WL 2136566, at *5 (E.D. Pa. May 25,
2010). The State has not established a chain of custody in this case, in fact, there is no chain of
custody—not by the affidavit of probable cause or by the information itself. The Medal Video
simply exists without any further authentication.
While chain of custody issues "normally go to weight rather than admissibility” these are
abnormal circumstances. (citing United States v. Allen, 619 F.3d 518 (6th Cir. 2010)). See Mills v.
Dunn, 6:17-cv-00789-LSC, at *146 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 30, 2020) (Applying a ruling of the
Alabama Supreme Court that held "[t]he State must establish a chain of custody without breaks
in order to lay a sufficient predicate for admission of evidence.”). Furthermore, none of the
witnesses that will be called for direct examination by the State are chain-of-custody or evidence procedure experts and will not be able to lay proper foundation for the admission of the Medal
Video.
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:08 p.m. 
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:08 p.m.
I assume that is why these people exist
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:08 p.m.
Evidence is authenticated during the trial
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:08 p.m.
if it isn't authenticated.. then it just isn't used
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:08 p.m.
"Unauthenticated material may not be used." Mayfl. R. Ev. 11(1)(a).
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:09 p.m.
what about the chain of custody issue i raised
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:09 p.m.
what type of chain of custody are you expecting
acerxtrowhat type of chain of custody are you expecting
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:10 p.m.
MBI Chain of Custody Report
Video Title: blah blah
File Download: link
Received From: johnny
Date: 09/10/2024
Video Title: blah blah
File Download: link
Received From: johnny
Date: 09/10/2024
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:10 p.m.
this video simply exists
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:10 p.m.
as i said
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:10 p.m.
it's not that hard to make a chain of custody
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:10 p.m.
they just didnt do it
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:11 p.m.
and the courts dont like that
impactiiiMBI Chain of Custody Report Video Title: blah blah File Download: link Received From: johnny Date: 09/10/2024
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:20 p.m.
I will not be requiring this. This is only really applicable to physical, tangible evidence.
acerxtroI will not be requiring this. This is only really applicable to physical, tangible evidence.
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:20 p.m.
"It is the obligation of the prosecution to establish the chain of custody." Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts , 557 U.S. 305, 311 n. 1, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (cleaned up)
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:21 p.m.
not required to call all chain of custody witnesses but
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:21 p.m.
It has historically never been used in this state.
acerxtroIt has historically never been used in this state.
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:22 p.m.
well that's what the us supreme court says and their holding is binding on us by virtue of the sixth amendment via incorporation doctrine
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:23 p.m.
if the state historically doesnt use chains of custody then that is an issue
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:23 p.m.
might actually be an interesting appeal
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:24 p.m.
if you deny the motion then i wanna appeal cause i actually am curious to see what SCOM will say
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:24 p.m.
not in a spiteful way but i am truly curious what their commentary on this practice would be
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:24 p.m.
(citing United States v. Allen, 619 F.3d 518 (6th Cir. 2010)). See Mills v.
Dunn, 6:17-cv-00789-LSC, at146 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 30, 2020) (Applying a ruling of the
Alabama Supreme Courtacerxtro 2024-10-12 05:25 p.m.
are you citing the alabama supreme court & the 6th circuit
impactiiiC. The Medal Video Fails to Meet the Authentication Requirements of MRE 11. Rule 11 of the Mayflower Rules of Evidence states that “[a]ll documents, data, records, videos, photogra...
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:25 p.m.
up here
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:25 p.m.
United States v. Allen, 619 F.3d 518 (6th Cir. 2010) should've been a "see" citation
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:25 p.m.
that was a misprint
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:25 p.m.
so
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:25 p.m.NOTICE OF ERROR
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:25 p.m.
See United States v. Allen, 619 F.3d 518 (6th Cir. 2010)); see also Mills v. Dunn, 6:17-cv-00789-LSC, at146 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 30, 2020) (Applying a ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:26 p.m.
and what follows
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:26 p.m.
This is the State of Mayflower, counsellor
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:26 p.m.
it's still persuasive precedent
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:26 p.m.
We are about inf. nautical miles away from Alabama
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:26 p.m.
surely we are but any court is persuasive
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:26 p.m.
also just a few days ago
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:26 p.m.
not persuasive enough to this court
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:26 p.m.
SCOM was citing circuit opinions from all over the country
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:27 p.m.
in their slip
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:27 p.m.
those were persuasive enough to be included
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:27 p.m.
i wish i knew what circuit we were in
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:27 p.m.
no circuit
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:27 p.m.
maybe second cause new york
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:28 p.m.
nope
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:28 p.m.
MDC -> MSC -> SCOTUS
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:28 p.m.
that's about it
acerxtroClick to see attachment.
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:29 p.m.
i dont think notjedi will be available
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:29 p.m.
i cant find him
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:32 p.m.
that is for the prosecutor to do
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:32 p.m.
it is his witness
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:33 p.m.
alright i'll have the notice of appeal done soon
taxi 2024-10-12 05:33 p.m.
notjedi is an alt account
taxi 2024-10-12 05:33 p.m.
kinda
taxi 2024-10-12 05:34 p.m.
notjedi will testify trust me
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:34 p.m.
whose alt
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:34 p.m.
do you know
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:34 p.m.@taxi
taxi 2024-10-12 05:35 p.m. 
taxi 2024-10-12 05:35 p.m.@impactiii
taxi 2024-10-12 05:37 p.m.@impactiii 
taxi 2024-10-12 05:39 p.m.@impactiii are you seriously appealing based of a persuasive opinion
taxi 2024-10-12 05:39 p.m.
not a binding
taxiimpactiii 2024-10-12 05:41 p.m.
i just wanna see what they say
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:42 p.m.
prongs of interlocutory appeal are satisfied
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:44 p.m.@taxi can you pull the criminal record of notjedi
taxi 2024-10-12 05:44 p.m.
no i cannot
taxino i cannot
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:44 p.m.
cant you view the database
taxi 2024-10-12 05:44 p.m.
cant u just check urself in game?
taxi 2024-10-12 05:44 p.m.
what database
taxiwhat database
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:45 p.m.
the arrest records
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:45 p.m.
well its your duty to give me impeachment evidence
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:45 p.m.
under this motion to compel
taxi 2024-10-12 05:46 p.m.@acerxtro do i honestly have to go in game to provide opposing counsel with something he can literally find himself
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:47 p.m.
yes
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:47 p.m.
you have been compelled to do so
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:47 p.m.
under the previous order
taxi 2024-10-12 05:47 p.m.
why dont you do it yourself
taxi 2024-10-12 05:47 p.m.
im literally busy
taxi 2024-10-12 05:48 p.m.
I've provided all the evidence I have that you dont have access to
taxi 2024-10-12 05:48 p.m.
you have access to the witnesses criminal record
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:49 p.m.
you are the one under court order not me
impactiii 2024-10-12 05:49 p.m.
and not to mention brady
taxi 2024-10-12 05:49 p.m.
yeah, ive disclosed everything i have access to
taxi 2024-10-12 05:49 p.m.
unless the judge tells me to,
taxi 2024-10-12 05:50 p.m.
im not loading in game
taxi 2024-10-12 05:50 p.m.
to do something you can do yourself
taxi 2024-10-12 05:50 p.m.
when im busy
impactiiiacerxtro 2024-10-12 06:11 p.m.
Are you trying to impeach notjedi
acerxtroAre you trying to impeach notjedi
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:11 p.m.
yes
impactiiiyes
acerxtro 2024-10-12 06:15 p.m.
you can pull up public record yourself
acerxtroyou can pull up public record yourself
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:16 p.m.
hes the one under the motion to compel
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:16 p.m.
not me
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:16 p.m.
he has to disclose impeachment evidence of his witnesses to me
acerxtro 2024-10-12 06:18 p.m.
He has already disclosed everything to his knowledge
acerxtro 2024-10-12 06:18 p.m.
you can look up public arrest records
acerxtroHe has already disclosed everything to his knowledge
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:18 p.m.
this is to his knowledge
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:18 p.m.
and he learned about this "crime alt" before i did
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:24 p.m.DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF APPEAL (INTERLOCUTORY)
CC:@acerxtro @taxi
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:24 p.m.
would you like a motion to stay pending appeal or would the court be so kind as to take the initiative @acerxtro
impactiiiwould you like a motion to stay pending appeal or would the court be so kind as to take the initiative @acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 06:26 p.m.
Case will continue unless a stay is issued.
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:27 p.m.
im gonna move to stay down here
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-10-12 06:29 p.m.@shah
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:29 p.m.
there's no actual way for me to transmit this to SCOM so
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:29 p.m.
its been served on all parties required
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:30 p.m.
i didnt follow the format
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:30 p.m.
my bad
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:30 p.m.
one sec
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:31 p.m.
why did the SCOM make the notice of appeal into a quasi writ of cert
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:31 p.m.
wth
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:31 p.m.
these rules are awful
acerxtro 2024-10-12 06:32 p.m.
well you have to include the reasons and questions presented.. you can't just tell them "I am appealing this!"
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:32 p.m.
you can in real life
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:32 p.m.
i dont know why they make you noa into like what i said it is
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:32 p.m.
its basically a pre writ of cert
impactiiii dont know why they make you noa into like what i said it is
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:33 p.m.
the noa*
impactiii
shah 2024-10-12 06:33 p.m.
Send to @capsulesalesman (apologies for interrupting transcript)(edited)
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:33 p.m.
ok
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:33 p.m.
gotta fix first
acerxtro pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:28 p.m.
impactiii 2024-10-12 06:49 p.m.
okay here we go
acerxtro 2024-10-12 07:25 p.m.
interesting questions
acerxtro 2024-10-12 07:25 p.m.
the medal video is the best form of videographic evidence that the state has
acerxtrointeresting questions
impactiii 2024-10-12 09:54 p.m.
Would you not entertain a motion to stay
acerxtro 2024-10-12 09:55 p.m.
I believe those are given to Supreme Court justices
acerxtroI believe those are given to Supreme Court justices
impactiii 2024-10-12 09:56 p.m.
Any court has the power to stay proceedings
impactiii 2024-10-12 09:56 p.m.
But if the pretrial clock keeps winding
impactiii 2024-10-12 09:56 p.m.
The defendant is gonna be prejudiced
impactiii 2024-10-13 12:48 a.m.DEFENDANT NEXUVZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT TWO BASED ON A FAILURE TO STATE AN OFFENSE
CC:@acerxtro @taxi
impactiii 2024-10-13 12:48 a.m.
I believe this is one we'd be inclined to agree on actually
impactiii 2024-10-13 12:49 a.m.
NOTICE OF ERROR:
forgot my (emphasis added) markers.......
forgot my (emphasis added) markers.......
totoro987123 2024-10-13 12:53 p.m.
acerxtro 2024-10-13 01:12 p.m.@impactiii
acerxtroimpactiii 2024-10-13 01:54 p.m.
hi
taxi 2024-10-13 02:26 p.m.
i cba bruh
acerxtro 2024-10-13 02:42 p.m.@singhski
singhski 2024-10-13 02:43 p.m.@acerxtro @taxi Need not to worry, the Office of the Solicitor General is handling any appellate proceedings related to this matter.
singhskitaxi 2024-10-13 02:43 p.m.
god bless u
singhskiacerxtro 2024-10-13 02:44 p.m.
wonderful
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-10-13 03:10 p.m.@acerxtro whats the states deadline to respond
impactiii 2024-10-13 03:10 p.m.
since we are 3 days from petrial closing
impactiii 2024-10-13 03:10 p.m.
pre
impactiiisince we are 3 days from petrial closing
acerxtro 2024-10-13 03:17 p.m.
3d @taxi @singhski
acerxtro 2024-10-13 03:18 p.m.
Unless they have an objection to that deadline
impactiii 2024-10-13 03:18 p.m.
24 hours
impactiii 2024-10-13 03:18 p.m.
for one reason
impactiii 2024-10-13 03:18 p.m.
if count two is dismissed then it will change the theory of my case
impactiii 2024-10-13 03:18 p.m.
and if trial happens right after count two is dismissed then i'll have to basically redo on the fly
impactiii 2024-10-13 03:19 p.m.
but i cant set up two theories on the off-chance the motion is granted and that just raises sixth amendment issues anyways
taxi 2024-10-13 03:42 p.m.@acerxtro wait
taxi 2024-10-13 03:42 p.m.
when do i ave to respond to that by
taxiwhen do i ave to respond to that by
acerxtro 2024-10-13 03:45 p.m.
You have 3 days to respond
acerxtro 2024-10-13 03:45 p.m.
(im extending the pretrial period by 1d)
taxi 2024-10-13 03:50 p.m.
ok
impactiiiacerxtro 2024-10-14 10:37 a.m.
Written ruling will be out for this motion later today
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:33 p.m.@taxi do you have his record
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:34 p.m.
notjedi
taxi 2024-10-14 04:39 p.m.
Bro
taxi 2024-10-14 04:39 p.m.
Get it urself
taxiGet it urself
impactiii 2024-10-14 05:02 p.m.
you have an affirmative duty to do it
impactiiinotjedi
acerxtro 2024-10-14 05:27 p.m.@taxi Please get the records for notjedi
acerxtroimpactiii 2024-10-14 05:29 p.m.
Give him a deadline so I’ll have time to review it
acerxtro 2024-10-14 05:29 p.m.
24h
impactiiiacerxtro 2024-10-15 03:16 a.m.@impactiii @taxi @singhski
A ruling on the motion in limine has been posted to the Trello card.
https://trello.com/c/qU1lpiZ9/87-state-of-mayflower-v-nexuvz CASE INFORMATION**
IN THE MAYFLOWER DISTRICT COURT FOR CLARK COUNTY
---
State of Mayflower v. nexuvz
Trial Type: Criminal - Felony
Judge Assigned: Judge acerxtro - Courtroom 107
Complaint Link: Attached Below
---
UPCOMING COURT DATES
```
Sta...
A ruling on the motion in limine has been posted to the Trello card.
https://trello.com/c/qU1lpiZ9/87-state-of-mayflower-v-nexuvz
---
---
```
Sta...
Comments
3Labels
Criminal, Felonytaxi 2024-10-15 11:22 a.m.@acerxtro Can I get an extension to the
taxi 2024-10-15 11:22 a.m.
other motion
taxi 2024-10-15 11:22 a.m.
Im rlly busy
taxi 2024-10-15 11:22 a.m.
Ill have it in on thursday if thats fine
totoro987123 2024-10-15 12:55 p.m.
This court doesn’t even have jurisdiction to do anything until the pending appeal is decided…
taxi 2024-10-15 01:50 p.m.@acerxtro so shall i leave the other motion for now
totoro987123This court doesn’t even have jurisdiction to do anything until the pending appeal is decided…
impactiii 2024-10-15 10:24 p.m.
You didn’t issue a stay bruh
totoro987123 2024-10-15 10:40 p.m.
I mean you guys can decide if you think there is jurisdiction or not and if any issues result I’m sure SCOM can decide if the court had jurisdiction to do it.
totoro987123 2024-10-15 10:40 p.m.
I alone can’t speak for the court
taxiimpactiii 2024-10-15 11:03 p.m.
why can’t you get someone else to do it
impactiii 2024-10-15 11:04 p.m.
And you’re over the deadline
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:20 a.m.DEFENDANT NEXVUZ’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY STATE ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT
CC:@actxrz @taxi
taxi 2024-10-16 08:57 a.m.
Dude u don’t realise how busy I am
taxi 2024-10-16 08:57 a.m.
Just because I have a life unlike u doesn’t mean I should be held in contempt
taxi 2024-10-16 08:58 a.m.
When I get home I’ll u ur records
taxi 2024-10-16 08:58 a.m.
Fucking he’ll
impactiii 2024-10-16 10:12 a.m.
You missed a hard deadline and then an extension
impactiii 2024-10-16 10:13 a.m.
And now it’s too late anyway
impactiii 2024-10-16 10:13 a.m.
Pretrial is over
impactiii 2024-10-16 10:13 a.m.
You could’ve asked anyone to do it for you
impactiii 2024-10-16 10:13 a.m.
Too late
totoro987123I mean you guys can decide if you think there is jurisdiction or not and if any issues result I’m sure SCOM can decide if the court had jurisdiction to do it.
acerxtro 2024-10-16 10:56 a.m.
Well the MSC has noted probable jurisdiction; if your court decides to proceed with an interlocutory appeal, I’m sure a stay will be granted then
taxiWhen I get home I’ll u ur records
acerxtro 2024-10-16 10:56 a.m.
You have one final chance today
acerxtro 2024-10-16 10:57 a.m.
You have until 6PM EST(edited)
impactiiiYou missed a hard deadline and then an extension
taxi 2024-10-16 11:02 a.m.
What extension are you talking baout
taxi 2024-10-16 11:02 a.m.
I wasnt even granted an extension
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-10-16 11:16 a.m.
Also @acerxtro they didn’t respond to this
acerxtro24h
impactiii 2024-10-16 11:16 a.m.@taxi
impactiii 2024-10-16 11:16 a.m.
Like I said even if you were busy you had plenty of time to delegate
impactiii 2024-10-16 11:17 a.m.
You’re on discord
impactiii 2024-10-16 11:17 a.m.
“Hey, can you do X for me?”
impactiii 2024-10-16 11:17 a.m.
Life skill
impactiii 2024-10-16 11:17 a.m.
Learn to delegate tasks
impactiii 2024-10-16 11:17 a.m.
We all have our own things going on
taxi 2024-10-16 11:52 a.m.
learn to touch grass
taxi 2024-10-16 11:52 a.m.
im getting u ur records
taxi 2024-10-16 11:52 a.m.
something u couldve easily done urself but anyhow
acerxtroYou have until 6PM EST(edited)
impactiii 2024-10-16 11:55 a.m.
He shouldn’t even be given a final deadline
impactiii 2024-10-16 11:55 a.m.
I could’ve moved to dismiss
impactiii 2024-10-16 11:55 a.m.
Brady violation is grounds for dismissal
impactiii 2024-10-16 11:56 a.m.
He disregarded the original motion, several requests by the defense, and ignored the 24 hour extended deadline
impactiii 2024-10-16 11:56 a.m.
You need to hold him in contempt
impactiii 2024-10-16 11:56 a.m.
Can’t be allowed to happen
impactiii 2024-10-16 11:56 a.m.
Hes going to keep doing it if you let him
taxi 2024-10-16 11:58 a.m.
I told you ive been busy
taxi 2024-10-16 11:58 a.m.
Could you stop bitching and actualy move on?
taxi 2024-10-16 11:58 a.m.
I'm in game now trying to find out where I can find the records
impactiii 2024-10-16 12:01 p.m.
You had a deadline
impactiii 2024-10-16 12:01 p.m.
Two deadlines
impactiii 2024-10-16 12:01 p.m.
You ignored both deadlines
impactiii 2024-10-16 12:01 p.m.
And now you’re crying for forgiveness
impactiii 2024-10-16 12:01 p.m.
Because you shit the bed
taxi 2024-10-16 12:01 p.m.
im not crying for forgiveness
impactiii 2024-10-16 12:01 p.m.
Good job
taxi 2024-10-16 12:01 p.m.
im asking u to stop bitching
taxi 2024-10-16 12:01 p.m.
cus ur clearly not advocating for ur client, ur forcing me to get ur records to prove a point
taxi 2024-10-16 12:03 p.m.@impactiii its 36 records
taxi 2024-10-16 12:03 p.m.
do u want me to send each individual record
impactiii 2024-10-16 12:05 p.m.
It’s too late at this point
impactiii 2024-10-16 12:05 p.m.
Again, good job
impactiii 2024-10-16 12:05 p.m.
You probably lost this case for the state because you were “too busy” to delegate the task to someone else
impactiii 2024-10-16 12:05 p.m.
Good job
impactiii 2024-10-16 12:14 p.m.@acerxtro
You’ll need to strike Notjedi0625 as a witness since the government didn’t disclose impeachment evidence and we’re already at trial
You’ll need to strike Notjedi0625 as a witness since the government didn’t disclose impeachment evidence and we’re already at trial
impactiii 2024-10-16 12:14 p.m.
I can’t mount a cross-exam of this witness now
impactiii 2024-10-16 12:14 p.m.
He’s substantially prejudiced this case by his conduct
impactiii 2024-10-16 12:18 p.m.
Passes the exclusion test of a witness under United States v. Starusko , 729 F.2d 256 (3d Cir. 1984):
(1) the arrest records are impeachment evidence, and therefore favorable to the defense
(2) the government willfully failed to disclose the arrest records (ignored two hard deadlines, didn’t even try to meet them)
(3) the prejudice has been substantial now given we are at trial—discovery and pretrial is over—and the defense will have no time to prepare a cohesive cross-exam even if it received the records now
(1) the arrest records are impeachment evidence, and therefore favorable to the defense
(2) the government willfully failed to disclose the arrest records (ignored two hard deadlines, didn’t even try to meet them)
(3) the prejudice has been substantial now given we are at trial—discovery and pretrial is over—and the defense will have no time to prepare a cohesive cross-exam even if it received the records now
taxiGet it urself
impactiii 2024-10-16 12:18 p.m.
Also let’s not forget this
impactiii 2024-10-16 12:18 p.m.
Completely willful and it deserves sanctions
impactiii 2024-10-16 12:20 p.m.
Contempt is the bare minimum here
impactiii 2024-10-16 12:20 p.m.
Like I said I was well within my right to ask the court to dismiss this whole case for this BS
acerxtroYou have until 6PM EST(edited)
acerxtro 2024-10-16 12:35 p.m.
By this deadline @taxi
acerxtro 2024-10-16 12:35 p.m.
Or I will grant all of the defense’s requests
impactiiiIt’s too late at this point
taxi 2024-10-16 12:47 p.m.
I never knew you call the shots here
taxi 2024-10-16 12:47 p.m.
(u dont)
taxi 2024-10-16 12:47 p.m.@acerxtro would the defense like me to send 36 individual records
taxi 2024-10-16 12:48 p.m.
heres latest
taxi 2024-10-16 12:58 p.m.@acerxtro @impactiii
acerxtroBy this deadline @taxi
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:04 p.m.
Doesn’t satisfy us
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:05 p.m.
Considering trial is literally what… tomorrow? Today?
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:05 p.m.
This guy ignored us for three days
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:05 p.m.
All of our requests
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:05 p.m.
He didn’t even do it until I just put that motion in
taxiheres latest
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:05 p.m.
That’s not all of them
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:05 p.m.
Are you gonna withhold the rest?
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:05 p.m.
Wouldn’t surprise me
impactiiiThis guy ignored us for three days
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:09 p.m.
And he was told he had an affirmative duty to disclose everything related to the impeachment of the state’s witnesses
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:09 p.m.
He knows better
taxiwhy dont you do it yourself
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:09 p.m.
.
taxiGet it urself
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:10 p.m.
.
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:10 p.m.@acerxtro
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:15 p.m.
This Court cannot “permit a party to defy Court orders, waste Court resources. . . and opposing counsel, and prejudice the opposing party in this manner.” Frederick v. Murphy , No. 10-CV-6527, 2018 WL 10247403, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2018) (quoting Njema v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , No. 13-CV-519, 2016 WL 308780, at *5 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2016), aff'd 673 Fed.Appx. 609 (8th Cir. 2017)). Sanctions—and even DISMISSAL—is more than “appropriate” here. Id.
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:17 p.m.
If him providing the records LAST MINUTE after 4 defense requests and 2 deadlines (1 more just now), then this court is permitting the State to do WHATEVER THEY WANT with a criminal defendants right to confront the evidence against them. This WILL happen again if you do not do something
taxi 2024-10-16 01:18 p.m.
I’ve defied any court orders
acerxtroGranted and completed, the prosecutor has testified that all disclosures have been completed.
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:18 p.m.@taxi this wasn’t a court order?
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:18 p.m.
Are you serious?
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:19 p.m.
You must be joking
taxi 2024-10-16 01:19 p.m.
Everything’s at ur disposal
taxi 2024-10-16 01:19 p.m.
And when the judge told me to hand over records I said okay
taxi 2024-10-16 01:19 p.m.
Idk why ur going on abt it
taxi 2024-10-16 01:20 p.m.@acerxtro does the court want me to send each and every single record in this chat
taxiEverything’s at ur disposal
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:20 p.m.
Im not the one with the duty to disclose
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:21 p.m.
lol
taxi 2024-10-16 01:21 p.m.
I disclosed everything u didn’t have access too
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:21 p.m.
It doesn’t matter
taxi 2024-10-16 01:21 p.m.
Nothings withheld
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:21 p.m.
You have to give me all impeachment evidence
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:21 p.m.
It’s not my duty to retrieve it
taxi 2024-10-16 01:21 p.m.
And if ur truly advocating for ur client u wouldn’t be bitching over a record u could easily get
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:22 p.m.
“[I]t was reasonable for [defendant's counsel] to consult the government in order to obtain [witness] arrest record and it was reasonable for him to rely on that information when he knew that the government is under an affirmative [ ] duty [to] reveal such information.” U.S. v. Duke , 50 F.3d 571, 578 (8th Cir. 1995)
“We strongly condemn the government's haphazard approach to its own trial preparation and to its duty to serve and facilitate the truth-finding function of the courts.”U.S. v. Duke , 50 F.3d 571, 578 n.4 (8th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Bernal-Obeso , 989 F.2d 331, 333-34 (9th Cir. 1993) ("A prosecutor who does not appreciate the perils of using rewarded criminals as witnesses risks compromising the truth-seeking mission of our criminal justice system. Because the government decides whether and when to use such witnesses, and what, if anything to give them for their service, the government stands uniquely positioned to guard against perfidy. By its actions, the government can either contribute to or eliminate the problem.")
“We strongly condemn the government's haphazard approach to its own trial preparation and to its duty to serve and facilitate the truth-finding function of the courts.”
taxi 2024-10-16 01:23 p.m.
Ok u have the records now
taxi 2024-10-16 01:23 p.m.
Just shut the fuck up dude
taxiJust shut the fuck up dude
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:24 p.m.@acerxtro
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:25 p.m.
I have one record
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:25 p.m.
You withheld the other 35
taxi 2024-10-16 01:25 p.m.
Okay so y want me to send each record?
taxi 2024-10-16 01:25 p.m.
I can facilitate such a request
taxi 2024-10-16 01:25 p.m.
I’ve asked u three times
taxi 2024-10-16 01:25 p.m.
It’s a yes or no fucming question
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:28 p.m.
It’s not that I want them
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:28 p.m.
You have to give them to me
impactiii 2024-10-16 01:28 p.m.
You didn’t do that
taxi 2024-10-16 01:48 p.m. 
taxi 2024-10-16 01:48 p.m. 
taxi 2024-10-16 01:48 p.m. 
taxi 2024-10-16 01:49 p.m. 
taxi 2024-10-16 01:49 p.m. 
taxi 2024-10-16 01:50 p.m. 
taxi 2024-10-16 01:50 p.m. 
taxi 2024-10-16 01:51 p.m. 
taxi 2024-10-16 01:51 p.m. 
taxi 2024-10-16 01:51 p.m. 
taxi 2024-10-16 01:51 p.m.@impactiii
taxi 2024-10-16 01:52 p.m.
should be 36 records
impactiii 2024-10-16 02:18 p.m.
After days of stonewalling and now dumping 36 records
impactiii 2024-10-16 02:18 p.m.
Made it painfully clear that it was never your priority to be a proper advocate of the state
impactiii 2024-10-16 02:18 p.m.
Just damage control after being caught
impactiii 2024-10-16 02:19 p.m.@acerxtro If you don't sanction or, or even dismiss this case outright for his concealment of 36 pieces of evidence, then I'll need some more time to look all of these over
impactiii 2024-10-16 02:19 p.m.
sanction him, or*
acerxtro 2024-10-16 04:41 p.m.
The evidence is here
acerxtro 2024-10-16 04:41 p.m.@impactiii Unless you disagree
taxiJust shut the fuck up dude
acerxtro 2024-10-16 04:43 p.m.@taxi Remain cordial and respectful in my chambers, even in light of the defense’s request
acerxtroimpactiii 2024-10-16 04:47 p.m.
You’re letting him walk all over you
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-10-16 04:48 p.m.@acerxtro I assume this is granted seeing as the State didn’t want to respond at all
impactiii 2024-10-16 04:48 p.m.
Despite the fact they had 3 days
impactiiiacerxtro 2024-10-16 04:52 p.m.
No, but I will make a ruling without their input
acerxtroimpactiii 2024-10-16 05:07 p.m.
Why is this being tolerated without consequence
impactiii 2024-10-16 05:07 p.m.
He goes and ignores all of your deadlines
impactiii 2024-10-16 05:08 p.m.
Ignores all of my evidentiary requests until he was under threat of contempt
impactiii 2024-10-16 05:08 p.m.
Tells me to shut the fuck up
impactiii 2024-10-16 05:08 p.m.
What are we doing here
impactiii 2024-10-16 05:08 p.m.
Are you afraid of being reversed on appeal?
impactiiiIgnores all of my evidentiary requests until he was under threat of contempt
taxi 2024-10-16 05:13 p.m.
I told you I’ve been busy?
taxi 2024-10-16 05:13 p.m.
With school, my business, revision, gym and maintaining a social life?
impactiii 2024-10-16 05:13 p.m.
So get someone else to do it
impactiii 2024-10-16 05:14 p.m.
This is entirely your fault
impactiii 2024-10-16 05:14 p.m.
I have 0 sympathy
taxi 2024-10-16 05:14 p.m.
It’s my case
taxi 2024-10-16 05:14 p.m.
I’ll do it in my spare time
impactiiiI have 0 sympathy
taxi 2024-10-16 05:14 p.m.
I don’t want your sympathy I want u to stop crying at everything
taxiIt’s my case
impactiii 2024-10-16 05:14 p.m.
So are you prosecuting for yourself or for the state
taxi 2024-10-16 05:14 p.m.
And learn what it’s like to have Roblox as ur sole purpose
taxi 2024-10-16 05:15 p.m.
U have ur records
impactiii 2024-10-16 05:17 p.m.
And you're still getting sanctioned
taxi 2024-10-16 05:50 p.m.
Who do u think you are to decide that?
impactiii 2024-10-16 07:19 p.m.DEFENDANT NEXVUZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT ONE AS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE
CC:@acerxtro @taxi
impactiiiacerxtro 2024-10-16 09:27 p.m.@impactiii @taxi
Motion granted.
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1279836211703447614/1296282627749183529
in-re-operatortaxi
Motion granted.
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1279836211703447614/1296282627749183529
acerxtro 2024-10-16 09:27 p.m.
Both cases will run concurrently.
acerxtro 2024-10-16 11:49 p.m.@urinal cake has been added
urinal cake 2024-10-16 11:51 p.m.
urinal cake 2024-10-16 11:51 p.m.
CC: @impactiii @acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-17 04:43 p.m.@taxi Responses to the defenses motions are due in 3 days time from this message.
taxi 2024-10-17 04:45 p.m.
Okay
acerxtroimpactiii 2024-10-17 05:02 p.m.
just the second one right
impactiii 2024-10-17 05:02 p.m.
cause he didnt respond at all to the first one
impactiii 2024-10-17 05:02 p.m.
after 3 days
acerxtrourinal cake 2024-10-17 05:05 p.m.
hi me too
Kezzera 2024-10-18 11:28 a.m.
TRANSCRIPTION BEING PRODUCED.
nexus 2024-10-18 05:01 p.m.
Thx
urinal cake 2024-10-19 01:21 a.m.@acerxtro filing-center
impactiii 2024-10-19 02:34 a.m.
Okay wait a minute
impactiii 2024-10-19 02:35 a.m.
This case is not “in its infancy”
impactiii 2024-10-19 02:35 a.m.
Pretrial ended 3 days ago
impactiii 2024-10-19 02:35 a.m.
And I object to allow the state to amend the CI
impactiii 2024-10-19 02:35 a.m.
Amending the substance of the CI is not allowed here
impactiii 2024-10-19 02:35 a.m.
Form, maybe… substance, absolutely not
impactiii 2024-10-19 02:36 a.m.
That’s never been allowed—amendments to substance would require them to nolle and refile
impactiiiThat’s never been allowed—amendments to substance would require them to nolle and refile
impactiii 2024-10-19 03:01 a.m.
If they were to add elements they forgot to include, we’d have to defend against new elements that weren’t part of the original information—this would be entirely prejudicial at this late stage. No, we are not in “infancy.”
CourtsONLY allow an amendment to an information when the change concerns matters of form rather than substance. Russell v. United States , 369 U.S. 749, 82 S.Ct. 1038 (1962). It is well settled that the “before verdict or finding” limitation on the government’s authority to amend the information applies to amendments that relate to matters of substance rather than form. United States v. Johnson , 576 F.2d 1331, 1332 (8th Cir. 1978).
An amendment of substance is one that is necessary to make a crime valid; in other words, it involves including the elements or statutory specifics they forgot to add (without consent for battery and the vagueness that we addressed as to felony misconduct). They should not be allowed to do that—the courts don’t permit it—and it can’t happen here.
What they are doing are amendments entirely of substance. They hadn’t charged the offenses properly before, and now they are going to “try” to do that with their amended CI which isn’t allowed underRussell and other relevant precedent that proscribe this.
WHAT THEY CAN DO (FORM):
- Verify the date on which the offense occurred
- Specify what weapon was used
WHAT THEY CANT DO (SUBSTANCE):
- Add in an element necessary to establish the offense (e.g., “without consent” or the nexuvz’s “abuse of position”)
- Add surplusage not necessary to establish the offense
Courts
An amendment of substance is one that is necessary to make a crime valid; in other words, it involves including the elements or statutory specifics they forgot to add (without consent for battery and the vagueness that we addressed as to felony misconduct). They should not be allowed to do that—the courts don’t permit it—and it can’t happen here.
What they are doing are amendments entirely of substance. They hadn’t charged the offenses properly before, and now they are going to “try” to do that with their amended CI which isn’t allowed under
- Verify the date on which the offense occurred
- Specify what weapon was used
- Add in an element necessary to establish the offense (e.g., “without consent” or the nexuvz’s “abuse of position”)
- Add surplusage not necessary to establish the offense
impactiiiIf they were to add elements they forgot to include, we’d have to defend against new elements that weren’t part of the original information—this would be entirely prejudicial at th...
impactiii 2024-10-19 03:03 a.m.
From the “Amended CI”:
“4 M.S.C. 5 § 1307 provides the circumstances in which peace officers may use force, and the Defendant met none of the criterion, thus violating that duty as defined by law.”
That pulls from the “defined by law” element of the felony misconduct statute. That was not in the original CI even though it was a required element. They can’t add that.
“4 M.S.C. 5 § 1307 provides the circumstances in which peace officers may use force, and the Defendant met none of the criterion, thus violating that duty as defined by law.”
That pulls from the “defined by law” element of the felony misconduct statute. That was not in the original CI even though it was a required element. They can’t add that.
acerxtroimpactiii 2024-10-19 03:08 a.m.
Also just FYI the State’s response to the motion to dismiss count two has been entirely untimely. They’re 3 days off of the 3 day already-expired deadline.
Link: https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1287966653564583946/1294884393428582410
The clock is one day left on the motion to dismiss count one.
Link: https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1287966653564583946/1296251226580844594
Link: https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1287966653564583946/1294884393428582410
The clock is one day left on the motion to dismiss count one.
Link: https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1287966653564583946/1296251226580844594
impactiiiIf they were to add elements they forgot to include, we’d have to defend against new elements that weren’t part of the original information—this would be entirely prejudicial at th...
impactiii 2024-10-19 03:11 a.m.
Courts do not allow the prosecution to cure a flawed information after the fact; they made their bed, so they will have to lie in it.
urinal cake 2024-10-19 10:24 a.m.
read rules of crim pro
urinal cake 2024-10-19 10:24 a.m.
instead of just copying and pasting case law
urinal cake 2024-10-19 10:24 a.m.
Thanks!
urinal cakeread rules of crim pro
impactiii 2024-10-19 10:47 a.m.
Amendments of substance are prejudicial
impactiii 2024-10-19 10:47 a.m.
And constitutional law supersedes rules of procedure
impactiiiAmendments of substance are prejudicial
urinal cake 2024-10-19 10:50 a.m.
what constitutional right has been abridged
urinal cake 2024-10-19 10:50 a.m.
following the amending of a charge description
urinal cake 2024-10-19 10:56 a.m.
let me get a chair for this response that will make 0 sense
impactiii 2024-10-19 11:14 a.m.
For one, under the Sixth Amendment “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” U.S. Const, amend. VI. Therefore, a “court cannot permit a defendant to be tried on charges that are not made in the [information].” Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 217, 80 S.Ct. 270, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960). That same logic applies when you add the elements (that you originally omitted) to make a charge valid under the law; you did not previously charge those offenses properly, so amendments of substance that include the omitted statutory elements would be “new offenses.” That’s just how it works.
Amendments of substance (they call it “variance”) are fatal “when the defendant is prejudiced in his defense because he cannot anticipate from the [information] what evidence will be presented against him.” Hunter v. State of New Mexico, 916 F.2d 595, 598 (10th Cir. 1990) (citing Stirone, 361 U.S. 212).
You can’t just tack on the missing elements you forgot earlier — we’d have to rewrite our entire theory of the case, and we couldn’t have possibly anticipated the arguments that might be made now after you’ve shifted the charges (e.g., the sudden inclusion of “unnecessary use of force,” which wasn’t even mentioned in the original information).
And I’ve already stated that the various federal circuits and the Supreme Court support this proposition that amendments of substance can’t be made.E.g., United States v. Johnson , 576 F.2d 1331, 1332 (8th Cir. 1978) (stating that the limitation on the government’s ability to amend an information applies to amendments of substance)
I’m not writing a second defense theory because of a midnight amendment that is going to “try” to cure the fatal deficiencies that should’ve been address before this case was brought. I’ve already explained what you can and can’t do. What you’re doing is impermissible.
Amendments of substance (they call it “variance”) are fatal “when the defendant is prejudiced in his defense because he cannot anticipate from the [information] what evidence will be presented against him.” Hunter v. State of New Mexico, 916 F.2d 595, 598 (10th Cir. 1990) (citing Stirone, 361 U.S. 212).
You can’t just tack on the missing elements you forgot earlier — we’d have to rewrite our entire theory of the case, and we couldn’t have possibly anticipated the arguments that might be made now after you’ve shifted the charges (e.g., the sudden inclusion of “unnecessary use of force,” which wasn’t even mentioned in the original information).
And I’ve already stated that the various federal circuits and the Supreme Court support this proposition that amendments of substance can’t be made.
I’m not writing a second defense theory because of a midnight amendment that is going to “try” to cure the fatal deficiencies that should’ve been address before this case was brought. I’ve already explained what you can and can’t do. What you’re doing is impermissible.
impactiii 2024-10-19 11:16 a.m.@acerxtro Restating objection to allowing State to amend the CI
impactiii 2024-10-19 11:16 a.m.
They know they can’t do it either. Just trying to pull a fast one
impactiiiFor one, under the Sixth Amendment “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” U.S. Const, am...
impactiii 2024-10-19 11:24 a.m.
Also, the subjects brought up in both of my motions to dismiss would be altered, and the defendant’s good faith challenge to the deficiencies in the information would effectively be quashed because the prosecution would be allowed to fix its mistakes after the fact—and that’s never been allowed.
UnderStirone , our objection is proper here.
Under
urinal cake 2024-10-19 11:40 a.m.
screw motions
urinal cake 2024-10-19 11:40 a.m.
lets just clog the case channel rigjt
urinal cake 2024-10-19 11:40 a.m.
if u want me to respond i can @acerxtro
impactiii 2024-10-19 11:44 a.m.
That means “I don’t know what to say”
impactiii 2024-10-19 11:44 a.m.
It’s your motion
impactiii 2024-10-19 11:45 a.m.
You should defend it
impactiii 2024-10-19 11:45 a.m.
And if since it’s a prohibited amendment
impactiii 2024-10-19 11:45 a.m.
You’re going to have to argue uphill
impactiiiAmendments of substance are prejudicial
acerxtro 2024-10-19 12:34 p.m.
Hello
acerxtro 2024-10-19 12:34 p.m.
Mayfl. Crim. P. 5(a) states that "after notice to the defendant, a matter of form or substance in an information may be amended at any time before the date the trial on the merits commences."
acerxtro 2024-10-19 12:35 p.m.
Same offense, just a clarification on it
acerxtro 2024-10-19 12:35 p.m.
I am inclined to accept the prosecution's new and amended CI
acerxtro 2024-10-19 12:36 p.m.
Your argument of having to change your entire defense style is non-existant, re-filing would end up leading us to this exact same place
acerxtro 2024-10-19 12:37 p.m.
I will accept a delay of any amount of days for the defense to prepare for this change
acerxtro 2024-10-19 12:37 p.m.
Does this work for both parties @urinal cake @impactiii
acerxtroDoes this work for both parties @urinal cake @impactiii
urinal cake 2024-10-19 01:15 p.m.
works for me
impactiiiThat means “I don’t know what to say”
urinal cake 2024-10-19 01:18 p.m.
LOOL
urinal cake 2024-10-19 01:18 p.m.
bro i was going apple and pumpkin picking with my family 
acerxtroMayfl. Crim. P. 5(a) states that "after notice to the defendant, a matter of form or substance in an information may be amended at any time before the date the trial on the mer...
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:22 p.m.
“An indictment or information may not be amended over the defendant's objection as to form or substance if the amended information charges the defendant with an additional or different offense or if the substantial rights of the defendant are prejudiced.”
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:23 p.m.
No this is not acceptable
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:23 p.m.
I re-state the arguments I made
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:23 p.m.
“if the substantial rights of the defendant are prejudiced.”
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:24 p.m.
I already thoroughly explained why we would be prejudiced here
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:24 p.m.
I prepared a voluminous theory for their original information that was flawed
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:24 p.m.
If they are allowed to amend the CI, then I will need another week
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:26 p.m.
For example, they didn’t include anything about use force or the nexus between his position and the abuse of authority. That was a substantial element required to statutorily charge the offense. They didn’t do that before, this new information does. The Notice Clause does not allow this, it’s a constitutional issue.
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:28 p.m.
They are not clarifying ANYTHING. Clarification on a date, for example is an amendment to form. Incorporating a statutory element that they forgot to include before is not an amendment to form—that’s introduces a brand new substantive argument
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:28 p.m.
Like the thing about use of force specifically under 4 MSC 5 Section 1307
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:29 p.m.
That was not specified beforehand whatsoever. There was no tie to that in the original CI past inference (and an information cannot be left to inference)
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:30 p.m.
I can go line by line and highlight the substantive changes
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:30 p.m.
I just need a few minutes to get back home
impactiiiIf they are allowed to amend the CI, then I will need another week
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:30 p.m.
Then a week you can get
acerxtroThen a week you can get
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:32 p.m.
I would like to just mention you’re also opening the floodgates to the prosecutors in this state to basically amend their information every single time a challenge is brought up in a motion to dismiss and this is gonna be a very troubling precedent in the future so I’d like you to think about this before you go down this path
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:32 p.m.
And I encourage you to read up on amendments to form and amendments to substance because clearly you have no idea what you’re talking about respectfully
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:32 p.m.
You can look at the department of justices’ manual they go in depth about it specifically with informations
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:33 p.m.
But they don’t go much in-depth about Russell
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:34 p.m.
The entire basis of your argument for dismissing the case is based on the fact that the CI was vague in its description of felony misconduct
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:34 p.m.
Am I wrong?
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:34 p.m.
There’s two motions to dismiss
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:34 p.m.
The first one was based on a failure to state an offense because the state did not charge the “without consent” element of battery
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:34 p.m.
Let's focus on one at a time
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:34 p.m.
The second one was based on a lack of specificity
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:34 p.m.
And a failure to properly charge the element of felony misconduct
impactiiiThe first one was based on a failure to state an offense because the state did not charge the “without consent” element of battery
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:34 p.m.
The state does not need to prove there was no consent
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:34 p.m.
that is an affirmative defense
acerxtroThe state does not need to prove there was no consent
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:35 p.m.
It’s in the statute
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:35 p.m.
?
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:35 p.m.
Let me pull it up
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:36 p.m. 
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:37 p.m.
Also, the state literally just did not respond to that motion and you didn’t do anything about it
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:37 p.m.
The first one that I made
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:38 p.m.
Not the first time they ignored the deadline and now they’re trying to go behind your back and basically lie to your face and tell you that that they can make this amendment when they can’t
impactiiiThe first one was based on a failure to state an offense because the state did not charge the “without consent” element of battery
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:41 p.m.
surely this isn't true
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:42 p.m.
On or about the 7th of September, Twenty Twenty Four, the Defendant, at the Mayflower State Police
station, near Mersea Bridge, willfully and maliciously harmed notjedi0625 by punching him multiple
times while notjedi0625 was placed in cuffs and was stood inside of a jail cell. The defendant
punched notjedi0625 multiple times through the jail cell walls which led to his harm.acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:42 p.m.
Apparently
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:42 p.m.
Ok
urinal cake 2024-10-19 01:43 p.m.
touch is assumed to be without consent unless there is explicit consent offered
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:43 p.m.
Where are your motions @impactiii
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:44 p.m.
I literally cannot keep up with the amount of documents being produced by you alone, especially when they are not even on the trello card or filed in filing-center
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:48 p.m.
I am denying every single motion that is still pending until it has been filed properly in filing-center
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:48 p.m.
Once they are actually filed correctly, we will review them one at a time
urinal caketouch is assumed to be without consent unless there is explicit consent offered
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:51 p.m.
Cite it
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:51 p.m.
That’s not true
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:51 p.m.
And you know it’s not true
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:51 p.m.
Cite where you got that from
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:53 p.m.@impactiii Do not speak another word in this case channel until the motions are filed
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:53 p.m.@acerxtro Also I’d like to remind you that if a prosecutor misstates the law, it’s grounds for a mistrial. See Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985)
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:53 p.m.
Give me a moment
urinal cake 2024-10-19 01:53 p.m.
we request sanctions @acerxtro
impactiiiurinal cake 2024-10-19 01:53 p.m.
LOOOOOOOOOOOL
urinal cakewe request sanctions @acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:53 p.m.
Denied
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:54 p.m.
"The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts viewed the prosecutor's comment as improper, but.. ..held that it was not so prejudicial as to require a mistrial. ." Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985)
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:54 p.m.
?
acerxtro"The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts viewed the prosecutor's comment as improper, but.. ..held that it was not so prejudicial as to require a mistrial. ." Caldwell v. Mi...
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:55 p.m.
That was as-applied to the facts of that case
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:55 p.m.
But they held that misstating the law is grounds for mistrial
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:55 p.m.
In general
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:56 p.m.
I do not care what that court says
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:56 p.m.
we are on motion #1
urinal cake 2024-10-19 01:56 p.m.
prosecutor misspeaks? Mistrial.
urinal cake 2024-10-19 01:56 p.m.
this guy can't be a real humanoid
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:57 p.m.
I’m not wrong
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:57 p.m.
Golden-rule argument, prosecutorial vouching, etc.
acerxtroacerxtro 2024-10-19 01:57 p.m.@impactiii
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:57 p.m.
It depends if it’s deliberate and what the context was
impactiii 2024-10-19 01:58 p.m.
Yes one second
urinal cake 2024-10-19 01:58 p.m.
stop talking
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:58 p.m.
You too @urinal cake
acerxtro 2024-10-19 01:58 p.m.
Wait for the defense
impactiii 2024-10-19 02:01 p.m.
acerxtro 2024-10-19 02:01 p.m.@impactiii #006 or #004 first 
impactiii 2024-10-19 02:01 p.m.
004 because they didn't respond to it
impactiii 2024-10-19 02:02 p.m.
And it's just in order
acerxtroimpactiii 2024-10-19 02:05 p.m.
NOTICE OF ERROR on Mot. Seq. #004 at p. 9
The State failed tostate the offense of battery—they should not be entitled to the benefit of
the doubt by this Court.
The State failed to
the doubt by this Court.
acerxtro 2024-10-19 02:06 p.m.
Ok cool battery is not explained enough in the CI
acerxtro 2024-10-19 02:06 p.m.
I concur
acerxtro 2024-10-19 02:24 p.m.@impactiii Explain to me why I should not allow the prosecution to amend the CI to fix the counts of battery and felony misconduct under Mayfl. R. Crim. 7(5).
acerxtroimpactiii 2024-10-19 02:25 p.m.
Do you mind if I do a voice note I’m walking to work rn
acerxtro 2024-10-19 02:25 p.m.
I will not consider persuasive authority.
acerxtro 2024-10-19 02:25 p.m.
Go for it.
impactiii 2024-10-19 03:09 p.m.
impactiii 2024-10-19 03:10 p.m.@acerxtro
impactiii 2024-10-19 03:10 p.m.
My AirPods suck
urinal cake 2024-10-19 03:48 p.m.
i would like a transcription from the Clerk of the Court.
impactiii 2024-10-19 03:54 p.m.
impactiii 2024-10-19 03:55 p.m.@acerxtro
urinal cake 2024-10-19 03:55 p.m.
WTF
impactiii 2024-10-19 03:56 p.m.
you'rew elcome
urinal cake 2024-10-19 03:58 p.m.
i'd like a transcript so i could respond...
impactiii 2024-10-19 03:59 p.m.
He asked me not you
impactiii 2024-10-19 03:59 p.m.
I will be disappearing
urinal cake 2024-10-19 03:59 p.m.
all youve done is talked this entire time
urinal cake 2024-10-19 03:59 p.m.
pretty sure it's my turn
impactiiiClick to see attachment.
acerxtro 2024-10-20 12:57 a.m.
I heard "circuit law" in here
acerxtro 2024-10-20 12:57 a.m.
I am not listening past 5:02
acerxtro 2024-10-20 01:08 a.m.
I see the amendments being made to the CI as clarifications on the pre-existing charges rather than introducing entirely new charges. I believe that the impact of allowing such clarification to occur would not violate the 6A. The reasoning behind why this amendment exists is to ensure defendants have ample time to mount a defense and to prepare for trial. The prosecution cannot just add 200 charges 10 minutes before a trial and expect the defense to be ready to defend their client in such a short amount of time. This is just not the case here, as this court is prepared to give extra time for the defense to prepare after this change is made.
Dismissing the case without prejudice and allowing it to be refiled would be inefficient and unreasonable, especially if both the Mayflower Rules of Criminal Procedure AND the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allow for changes in matters of substance. Obviously the 6A will be a consideration when any change is made to the CI, but completely barring any changes to a CI under the 6A is unreasonable, and if this argument was valid, there would not be procedures in place to do such unconstitutional things.
I will be partially accepting both of the defenses motions: the prosecution is compelled to revise their criminal information in a way that defines felony misconduct properly and that includes missing elements from battery.
I will not be issuing a written ruling for this motion beyond what I am doing here, unless it is explicitly requested of me. This is to not hamper and slow down this trial anymore than it already has been. If such ruling is requested, it will be done concurrently to the happenings of the trial, at a later date.
@urinal cake @impactiii
Dismissing the case without prejudice and allowing it to be refiled would be inefficient and unreasonable, especially if both the Mayflower Rules of Criminal Procedure AND the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allow for changes in matters of substance. Obviously the 6A will be a consideration when any change is made to the CI, but completely barring any changes to a CI under the 6A is unreasonable, and if this argument was valid, there would not be procedures in place to do such unconstitutional things.
I will not be issuing a written ruling for this motion beyond what I am doing here, unless it is explicitly requested of me. This is to not hamper and slow down this trial anymore than it already has been. If such ruling is requested, it will be done concurrently to the happenings of the trial, at a later date.
acerxtro 2024-10-20 01:09 a.m.@impactiii Take a look at the CI and let me know if it is to your standards. I'd like to catch any issues or problems now instead of repeating this all over again later on.
acerxtroimpactiii 2024-10-20 02:26 a.m.
Yeah I do have a major issue to raise right off the bat with count one
impactiii 2024-10-20 02:27 a.m.
And like I said, you can’t make an amendment of substance to a CI at this stage
acerxtro 2024-10-20 02:27 a.m.
Says what
impactiii 2024-10-20 02:27 a.m.
The Sixth Amendment and the Court is Stirone
impactiii 2024-10-20 02:27 a.m.
In*
acerxtro 2024-10-20 02:27 a.m.
Cite directly
impactiii 2024-10-20 02:27 a.m.
One second
impactiii 2024-10-20 02:28 a.m.
But before I do that I wanna clarify that he did in fact make an amendment of substance to count one
acerxtro 2024-10-20 02:29 a.m.
That is not contested
impactiii 2024-10-20 02:30 a.m.
Alright then I’ll just scrap what I was gonna write let me go get the case
impactiiiAlright then I’ll just scrap what I was gonna write let me go get the case
acerxtro 2024-10-20 02:42 a.m.
Ok
acerxtroThat is not contested
impactiii 2024-10-20 02:51 a.m.
I'm just letting you know that it's really hard to pull from SCOTUS case law because they only touch on amendments to indictments and only a portion of which would also be applicable to amendments of informations. The irl DOJ justice manual actual defers to the 1st and 5th for explanations on amendments to informations
Lots of grand jury stuff below. Like I said, I can't find one SCOTUS case that mentions amendments to informations, they're all on the circuit level. Some principles are the same though. Bear with me here:
InStirone v. United States , the Supreme Court held that “a court cannot permit a defendant to be tried on charges that are not made in the indictment against him.” 361 U.S. 212, 217 (1960). Although the trial court in Stirone did not allow a formal amendment, the Court concluded that “the effect of what it did was the same,” id . at 217, by introducing a new basis for conviction that had not been presented to the grand jury. The Court ended up concluding that “neither this nor any other court can know that the grand jury would have been willing to charge” the defendant with this new offense, id ., and noted that such an amendment is “neither trivial, useless, nor innocuous.” Id. at 218. This principle applies equally to a prosecutor's information—which is what is in play here (if I could cite circuit law here I would). The state cannot introduce substantive amendments that alter the nature of the charges without violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the accusations against him
Lots of grand jury stuff below. Like I said, I can't find one SCOTUS case that mentions amendments to informations, they're all on the circuit level. Some principles are the same though. Bear with me here:
In
impactiii 2024-10-20 02:51 a.m.
You've neutered me by taking away my circuit law
impactiii 2024-10-20 02:53 a.m.
i picked out stuff that is kind of on an equal basis between indictments and informations
impactiii 2024-10-20 02:54 a.m.
And I mean if you want me to make some extremely long conjecturous argument about the Sixth Amendment without citing any case law, I can do that too
impactiii 2024-10-20 02:54 a.m.
But I need my tools (circuit law)
impactiii 2024-10-20 02:55 a.m.
The reason SCOTUS doesnt really touch stuff about informations is because most people dont appeal when theyre tried by an information in a felony case (which is where it is used most) because informations in felony cases are usually only presented during plea agreements when they waive the right to be indicted by a grand jury
impactiii 2024-10-20 02:56 a.m.
so the furthest you'll see it is at the federal circuit level
impactiii 2024-10-20 02:56 a.m.
but nonetheless stirone does apply here
impactiii 2024-10-20 02:58 a.m.
I also really don't see why the court would be interested in giving the state a second chance when it's already noted and taken the arguments surrounding the deficiencies in the information
impactiii 2024-10-20 02:59 a.m.
If we permit the state to amend their CI each time a motion to dismiss is made, I don't even know what's gonna happen in the future
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:40 a.m.
And I'd like to bring up one very important point:
"An indictment or information may not be amended over the defendant's objection as to form or substance if the amended information charges the defendant withan additional or different offense or if the substantial rights of the defendant are prejudiced." Mayfl. R. Crim. P. 7(5)(3)
This court has noted two things: (1) that there are bona fide defects in the information and (2) that the state needs to make substantive amendments to cure them.
Now, what constitutes a substantive amendment? A substantive amendment is one that is needed to make an offense valid; in other words, it involves adding an element that was omitted from the original charge, which is what has occurred in this case.
When you state an offense in an information—regardless of whether it sufficiently alleges the offense under the law—you’re still informing the defendant of the charges against them. If the state adds a new element that changes the nature of the offense, it transforms what was originally charged into a different, entirely new offense. It may sound strange, but courts don’t just read statutory citations or count headers—they focus on the charge descriptions (e.g., listing "first degree murder" doesn't cure a faulty count description). Since we convict people based on whether they are guilty of eachelement , adding a new element means that the defendant is not defending against the original charge but is instead being subjected to a fundamentally different accusation
"An indictment or information may not be amended over the defendant's objection as to form or substance if the amended information charges the defendant with
This court has noted two things: (1) that there are bona fide defects in the information and (2) that the state needs to make substantive amendments to cure them.
Now, what constitutes a substantive amendment? A substantive amendment is one that is needed to make an offense valid; in other words, it involves adding an element that was omitted from the original charge, which is what has occurred in this case.
When you state an offense in an information—regardless of whether it sufficiently alleges the offense under the law—you’re still informing the defendant of the charges against them. If the state adds a new element that changes the nature of the offense, it transforms what was originally charged into a different, entirely new offense. It may sound strange, but courts don’t just read statutory citations or count headers—they focus on the charge descriptions (e.g., listing "first degree murder" doesn't cure a faulty count description). Since we convict people based on whether they are guilty of each
impactiiiIf we permit the state to amend their CI each time a motion to dismiss is made, I don't even know what's gonna happen in the future
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:42 a.m.
Also, allowing the State to constantly "try again" because they failed to properly inform a defendant the first time just goes against the concept of judicial economy and the safeguards against prosecutorial overreaching inherent in that. See Fong Foo v. United States , 369 U.S. 141, 143 (1962) (encouraging finality in the criminal justice process and discouraging repetitive attempts to prosecute)
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:49 a.m.
And I do have some sympathy for you where you might be reluctant to outright dismiss both counts but you already noted that there are defects in the information and you’re going to have to stand by what you said sooner or later.
You also need to think about what’s going to happen in the future if you allow the State to make substantive amendments (which aren’t allowed, again) over motions to dismiss based on defects in the information.
And as to your original order: time isn’t the only issue for the defense with this proposed amendment
@acerxtro
You also need to think about what’s going to happen in the future if you allow the State to make substantive amendments (which aren’t allowed, again) over motions to dismiss based on defects in the information.
And as to your original order: time isn’t the only issue for the defense with this proposed amendment
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:53 a.m.
You should stand by what you already said—you agree that there are defects in the information. Let’s not bog ourselves down in amendments and let’s focus on the fact that a failure to state an offense is a jurisdictional error (which is subject to dismissal) and vagueness implicates the safeguard of the notice clause (which also warrants dismissal). We don’t even need to touch the merits of amendments.
impactiiiI'm just letting you know that it's really hard to pull from SCOTUS case law because they only touch on amendments to indictments and only a portion of which would also be applicab...
acerxtro 2024-10-20 09:59 a.m.
Ok I am still seeing arguments on mutually agreed facts so I will not continue reading past 361 U.S. 212
acerxtroacerxtro 2024-10-20 10:00 a.m.@impactiii Check the CI
acerxtroOk I am still seeing arguments on mutually agreed facts so I will not continue reading past 361 U.S. 212
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:42 a.m.
I hope you’re joking
acerxtroimpactiii 2024-10-20 10:43 a.m.
I just stated another page full of objections on why this isn’t allowed
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:44 a.m.
I don’t know why you’d ignore arguments from defense counsel
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:47 a.m.
You’ve stated that you will be ignoring my arguments twice now
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:48 a.m.
You’ve chosen to disregard persuasive precedent for… absolutely no reason
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:48 a.m.
I don’t see why you’re on this case if you just don’t care
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:48 a.m.
You agree with me that there are defects in the information
impactiiiYou should stand by what you already said—you agree that there are defects in the information. Let’s not bog ourselves down in amendments and let’s focus on the fact that a failure...
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:48 a.m.
.
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:51 a.m.
If you think that substantive amendments are allowed, then please cite some case law of your own
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:51 a.m.
I’ve seen you generate no arguments to defend your position as a judge unless you really want the record for being reversed on appeal
impactiiiYou should stand by what you already said—you agree that there are defects in the information. Let’s not bog ourselves down in amendments and let’s focus on the fact that a failure...
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:58 a.m.
“The [information] must be dismissed. To be legally sufficient an [information] must apprise an accused of the nature of the charge which he must meet and must plainly describe each element of the offense. United States v. Debrow , 346 U.S. 374, 376, 74 S.Ct. 113, 98 L.Ed. 92 (1953); United States v. Behrman , 258 U.S. 280, 42 S.Ct. 303, 66 L.Ed. 619 (1922); Bryant v. United States , 462 F.2d 433 (8th Cir. 1972). Here, an essential element of the offense has been omitted from the [information].”
United States v. Tyndall , 400 F. Supp. 949 (D. Neb. 1975)
You agree with me that thereare defects in the information.
Don’t even look to the amendments if you’re confused. You’re supposed to dismiss the information if there are errors in the charging language… amendments aren’t an opportunity for the State to try again.
You agree with me that there
Don’t even look to the amendments if you’re confused. You’re supposed to dismiss the information if there are errors in the charging language… amendments aren’t an opportunity for the State to try again.
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:01 a.m.
And if you want to talk about upholding prior state precedent, like I know you like to do
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:02 a.m.
Then you’ll be undoing all of that by allowing this amendment here—MTDs based on defects in the information will never happen again. I promise you
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:03 a.m.
You’re going far against the grain and abusing your discretion as a judge while not accounting for significant rights of the accused that are being wholly shredded here
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:03 p.m.
Counsellor, I do not appreciate your snarky comments made in this channel such as "this might be worse than the 'chain of custody' ruling," which were made and then deleted from the court's record, something explicitly prohibited by my chamber rules.
If you really want to know why I am limiting your oral explanations to my questions, it is because your arguments are hard to follow and do not initially answer the questions I ask you. You were previously asked to give additional reasoning and explanation as to why the court should not allow the information to be amended rather than dismissed. Instead of doing so, you immediately dove into why something had to be done about both charges and that both are unconstitutionally vague. This isnot what I had asked you to explain.
I have encouraged you to speak plain English with your explanation and to apply and use the Mayflower Rules of Criminal Procedure. I have already made it clear that the Notice Clause would not be an issue, as I am willing to give the defense days, or even weeks, to recover from such an amendment to the information. Despite this, you continue to argue the same point, which the court has already answered and rejected. I have been looking for other reasons not to allow an amendment to the information, and such a search has yet to come to any conclusion.
No, no new offenses are being charged in the information. It will still be felony misconduct and battery. No, no offenses are being switched. It will still be felony misconduct and battery. The subjects of both offenses aren't changing. There is no "entirely new" offense being created. If both counts were dismissed, and the case was subsequently dismissed, the prosecution would refile, and we'd be at square 1 again.
Additionally, your arguments in this case channel should be in a motion. If you wanted to revise the information in your motion, you should have done so when you were drafting it or submitted a revised version at a later date. The only reason I should see arguments in this channel is if I directly ask you a question, which I originally did.
I am over your contestations of this motion, and I will not stand for the attitude presented today. If you decide to delete messages from the record again, especially when you make snarky and unnecessary comments like you did before, I will have you thrown out of this courtroom and into another with "In re" before the title, just like OperatorTaxi. You may request another interlocutory appeal at your own will, but you will not show the attitude you've shown today before this court again.
@impactiii
If you really want to know why I am limiting your oral explanations to my questions, it is because your arguments are hard to follow and do not initially answer the questions I ask you. You were previously asked to give additional reasoning and explanation as to why the court should not allow the information to be amended rather than dismissed. Instead of doing so, you immediately dove into why something had to be done about both charges and that both are unconstitutionally vague. This is
I have encouraged you to speak plain English with your explanation and to apply and use the Mayflower Rules of Criminal Procedure. I have already made it clear that the Notice Clause would not be an issue, as I am willing to give the defense days, or even weeks, to recover from such an amendment to the information. Despite this, you continue to argue the same point, which the court has already answered and rejected. I have been looking for other reasons not to allow an amendment to the information, and such a search has yet to come to any conclusion.
No, no new offenses are being charged in the information. It will still be felony misconduct and battery. No, no offenses are being switched. It will still be felony misconduct and battery. The subjects of both offenses aren't changing. There is no "entirely new" offense being created. If both counts were dismissed, and the case was subsequently dismissed, the prosecution would refile, and we'd be at square 1 again.
Additionally, your arguments in this case channel should be in a motion. If you wanted to revise the information in your motion, you should have done so when you were drafting it or submitted a revised version at a later date. The only reason I should see arguments in this channel is if I directly ask you a question, which I originally did.
I am over your contestations of this motion, and I will not stand for the attitude presented today. If you decide to delete messages from the record again, especially when you make snarky and unnecessary comments like you did before, I will have you thrown out of this courtroom and into another with "In re" before the title, just like OperatorTaxi. You may request another interlocutory appeal at your own will, but you will not show the attitude you've shown today before this court again.
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:04 p.m.
A written ruling has been made and posted for both motions to dismiss.
Once read, the prosecution will submit a new criminal information that meets the guidelines enumerated in such ruling. I believe a CI has already been submitted for review, so the state will need to confirm whether or not they wish to use the 2nd one already submitted or if they wish to draft another one.
@impactiii @urinal cake
Once read, the prosecution will submit a new criminal information that meets the guidelines enumerated in such ruling. I believe a CI has already been submitted for review, so the state will need to confirm whether or not they wish to use the 2nd one already submitted or if they wish to draft another one.
impactiiiAnd I'd like to bring up one very important point: "An indictment or information may not be amended over the defendant's objection as to form or substance if the amended informati...
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:05 p.m.
.
impactiii“The [information] must be dismissed. To be legally sufficient an [information] must apprise an accused of the nature of the charge which he must meet and must plainly describe eac...
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:05 p.m.
.
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:05 p.m.
this is out of control
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:06 p.m.
Read the ruling and paragraph 4 of the statement I directly addressed you in.
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:06 p.m.
you are making a big mistake
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:06 p.m.
this is terrible
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:07 p.m.
If so, the Supreme Court will strike my ruling down and explain why.
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:07 p.m.
you're right they will
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:07 p.m.
you know the supreme court cites circuit law in it's opinions
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:07 p.m.
here
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:08 p.m.
yet you refuse to use it
acerxtroCounsellor, I do not appreciate your snarky comments made in this channel such as "this might be worse than the 'chain of custody' ruling," which were made and then deleted from th...
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:08 p.m.
Did you read an ounce of what was said up here?
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:10 p.m.
basically just reprimanding me after telling me to my face you were ignoring my arguments
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:10 p.m.
its fine
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:10 p.m.
my virtual face
impactiiibasically just reprimanding me after telling me to my face you were ignoring my arguments
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:15 p.m.
I encourage you to argue logic rather than introducing an important citation then switching topics. This is the reason why you were directed not to use persuasive precedent when answering my direct question in this channel. You've previously done what I've just said, especially with stating that "misstating the law is grounds for mistrial in general." https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1287966653564583946/1297256810914517084 If you solemnly believe that the charges should be dismissed because of the Notice Clause (even when this court is willing to give more than ample notice), you can include the arguments as to why in an appeal.
I do not want any further discussions or arguments to be had in this channel until the prosecution confirms whether or not they will be using the previously submitted CI (the 2nd one).
I do not want any further discussions or arguments to be had in this channel until the prosecution confirms whether or not they will be using the previously submitted CI (the 2nd one).
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:16 p.m.
Your persuasive precedent was considered (and I think used, if I recall correctly) in the motions btw.
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:17 p.m.
theres no ruling posted
impactiiitheres no ruling posted
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:21 p.m. Nexuvz v. State of Mayflower
Notice of Appeal
---
Filing Attorney:
Time Filed: 10/12/2024
Docket
Oct. 12 2024: [Notice of appeal filed.](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G4LZ81HMlNmObgbzRaYH1EBIKjAYRvyi/view?usp=drivesdk ...
---
Filing Attorney:
Filer: sadoimpacto
SC Bar Membership: No. 1009212
Discord: impactiii
Filed on behalf of Petitioner
Time Filed: 10/12/2024
Comments
3Labels
Appeal, Case, Automatic Reviewacerxtro 2024-10-20 03:21 p.m.
The in-game ruling system is broken.
urinal cake 2024-10-20 03:43 p.m.
doj 1 sado 0
urinal cakedoj 1 sado 0
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:44 p.m.
urinal cake 2024-10-20 03:45 p.m.
noo i got disqualified
urinal cake 2024-10-20 03:45 p.m.
acerxtroA written ruling has been made and posted for both motions to dismiss. Once read, the prosecution will submit a new criminal information that meets the guidelines enumerated in su...
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:45 p.m.@urinal cake
acerxtroA written ruling has been made and posted for both motions to dismiss. Once read, the prosecution will submit a new criminal information that meets the guidelines enumerated in su...
urinal cake 2024-10-20 03:45 p.m.
will do
urinal cake 2024-10-20 03:45 p.m.
thank you your honor
acerxtroimpactiii 2024-10-20 03:47 p.m.
lets get that one week continuance then
urinal cakewill do
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:48 p.m.
New CI or will you be using the one already submitted
urinal cake 2024-10-20 03:48 p.m.
got it
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:48 p.m.
next sunday
urinal cake 2024-10-20 03:48 p.m.
we look forward to seeing the defense in a week
urinal cakegot it
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:48 p.m.
Prosecutor
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:49 p.m.
that was a multiple choice question
urinal cake 2024-10-20 03:49 p.m.
i see.......
urinal cake 2024-10-20 03:49 p.m.
i'll get back to you on that
urinal cake 2024-10-20 03:49 p.m.
i will convene with my colleagues
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:49 p.m.
Ok you have 1 day
acerxtroOk you have 1 day
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:57 p.m.
run the clock once he returns the information
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:57 p.m.
that way i will have a whole week to...
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:57 p.m.
reprepare
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:57 p.m.
though this case will end up going up on appeal anyway depending on what happens
impactiiirun the clock once he returns the information
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:58 p.m.
I will have you review the CI before I start the clock
acerxtroI will have you review the CI before I start the clock
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:59 p.m.
wouldn't i basically be writing the CI for them at that point
impactiii 2024-10-20 03:59 p.m.
this is already questionable
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:59 p.m.
No, I just want to ensure there are no further objections to the CI
acerxtro 2024-10-20 04:00 p.m.
Same concept as me asking if anyone has any objections to evidence after discovery ends
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:00 p.m.
thats not a good comparison ngl
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:00 p.m.
but
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:01 p.m.
there will be further objections and if there are objections once more then im in a position where i will have to move to dismiss once more
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:01 p.m.
im already not happy with how this was handled but if there is a second set of defects i think you'll agree that we will have no choice here
acerxtroNew CI or will you be using the one already submitted
urinal cake 2024-10-20 05:40 p.m.
new CI
urinal cakenew CI
acerxtro 2024-10-20 05:42 p.m.
Ok it will be due 24h from here
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1287966653564583946/1297647864985554974
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1287966653564583946/1297647864985554974
acerxtro 2024-10-20 05:42 p.m.
No extensions
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:40 p.m.@acerxtro if possible i'd like to ask the state to turn over the transcript of the discord channel that they used when processing the AOPC and CI
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:40 p.m.
i know they have one because the MBI does tickets for AOPCs
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:40 p.m.
also it would be in compliance with the brady order
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:40 p.m. 
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:41 p.m.
(3) and (5)
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:41 p.m.
and i suppose (4) as well but that's speculating
impactiiiacerxtro 2024-10-20 11:00 p.m.@urinal cake response
taxiive handed over all the stuff i have possession o
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:01 p.m.
^
acerxtro 2024-10-20 11:01 p.m.@impactiii
acerxtroimpactiii 2024-10-20 11:02 p.m.
can you ask him if they (1) had a discord channel for the ticket or (2) if they submitted the AOPC via DMs to someone
impactiiican you ask him if they (1) had a discord channel for the ticket or (2) if they submitted the AOPC via DMs to someone
acerxtro 2024-10-20 11:02 p.m.@urinal cake
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:02 p.m.
ive just searched nexuvz in the mbi discord and it came back to nothing
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:02 p.m.
DMs?
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:02 p.m.
i will ask the original prosecutor how he got it
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:02 p.m.
yeah probably
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:02 p.m.
ok
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:03 p.m. 
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:03 p.m.
its also possible that the ticket was deleted
urinal cakeits also possible that the ticket was deleted
acerxtro 2024-10-20 11:03 p.m.
Do you keep transcripts
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:03 p.m.
we do
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:04 p.m.
just checked the transcripts
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:04 p.m.
nothing
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:05 p.m.
mustve been dms
urinal cakeits also possible that the ticket was deleted
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:05 p.m.
check audit logs
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:05 p.m.
i just checked the transcript
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:05 p.m.
nothing
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:05 p.m.
must be dms
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:05 p.m.
so dms
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:06 p.m.
yep
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:06 p.m.
as ive said
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:06 p.m.
twice
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:06 p.m.
but thats just my presumption
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:06 p.m.
i wasnt here when the aopc was attained
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:06 p.m.
is there any chance at all they they used a ticket
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:06 p.m.
no
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:06 p.m.
when did MBI start using tickets
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:06 p.m.
i looked at both tickets opened by OperatorTaxi
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:06 p.m.
neither of them pertained to nexuvz
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:06 p.m.
09/07/2024
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:07 p.m.
and the AOPC was made on 09/12/2024
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:07 p.m.
wait
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:07 p.m.
yeah
urinal cake 2024-10-20 11:08 p.m.
Yeah.
acerxtroOk it will be due 24h from here https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1287966653564583946/1297647864985554974
acerxtro 2024-10-21 03:18 p.m.@urinal cake
urinal cake 2024-10-21 05:01 p.m.
Hi
urinal cakemust be dms
impactiii 2024-10-21 05:07 p.m.
.
urinal cake 2024-10-21 05:08 p.m.
Oh yeah
urinal cake 2024-10-21 05:08 p.m.
this is what i got
urinal cake 2024-10-21 05:08 p.m. 
urinal cake 2024-10-21 05:08 p.m. 
urinal cake 2024-10-21 05:14 p.m.
is that sufficient for you @impactiii
urinal cake 2024-10-21 05:14 p.m.
well honestly it has to be
urinal cake 2024-10-21 05:14 p.m.
i ctrl+f'd nexuvz and looked at all of operatortaxi's tickets
impactiii 2024-10-21 05:16 p.m.
You are the one that has to make sure
impactiii 2024-10-21 05:16 p.m.
Doesn't matter if it's sufficient enough for me
impactiii 2024-10-21 05:17 p.m.
We can continue @acerxtro
urinal cake 2024-10-21 05:21 p.m.
i've done everything i could
urinal cake 2024-10-21 05:21 p.m.
i asked the prosecutor, i searched the tickets, ctrl+f'd his name
urinal cake 2024-10-21 05:21 p.m.
that's the best i got
urinal cake 2024-10-21 05:22 p.m.
ive made a reasonable effort
impactiii 2024-10-21 05:24 p.m.
Alright well
impactiii 2024-10-21 05:24 p.m.
since this case has basically started over
impactiii 2024-10-21 05:25 p.m.
i assume the pretrial window is back open for filings
urinal cake 2024-10-21 05:28 p.m.
here we go
urinal cake 2024-10-21 05:28 p.m.
this guy is allergic to trial
urinal cakethis guy is allergic to trial
impactiii 2024-10-21 05:29 p.m.
If you want to contest my right to file motions I am sure the judge will be receptive to it so long as you don't cite circuit law
urinal cake 2024-10-21 05:29 p.m.
never contested your right
urinal cake 2024-10-21 05:29 p.m.
its just funny how unwilling you are to actually have to be a lawyer for once
impactiii 2024-10-21 05:31 p.m.
Sure
urinal cake 2024-10-21 05:33 p.m.
Sure
impactiiiIf you want to contest my right to file motions I am sure the judge will be receptive to it so long as you don't cite circuit law
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:09 p.m.
The only reason I wanted you to keep circuit law down to a minimum was so I can see your arguments.
I believe you are doing a great job advocating for your client and ensuring there are no stones left unturned, but your arguments are somewhat difficult to follow and to sympathize with. From the many motions I've read from you, I believe that your citing of case law gets in the way of you arguing the main points clearly. There's nothing more pleasant than opening a motion, say for example a motion to dismiss, and seeing "I. THE PROSECUTION LEFT AN ELEMENT OUT OF COUNT 1; II. THIS ERROR VIOLATES THE NOTICE CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT; III. THE COURT'S ONLY OPTION IS TO DISMISS THE CASE."
I am not saying that I won't read motions that aren't formatted like this, but if they are done that way, they are significantly easier to follow, easier to see your arguments and thought process, and help everyone formulate a response/ruling. I would also prefer you to elaborate on previous courts' rulings and how they connect with the case. I believe you stated
Nearly every time I have opened a motion, I have been slapped in the face with 3 words then 4 sentences of case law and citations, leaving me running to Justia.com to try to research what exactly this case is citing. Once I do that, I move my eyes a millimeter to the right and have to repeat the process over and over. It was my hope that quashing these long-winded citations would lead me straight to the main point (e.g. Count 1 leaves out the element of unconsented conduct, which violates the 6A, and must result in the CI being dismissed), but that didn't really happen.
I believe you are doing a great job advocating for your client and ensuring there are no stones left unturned, but your arguments are somewhat difficult to follow and to sympathize with. From the many motions I've read from you, I believe that your citing of case law gets in the way of you arguing the main points clearly. There's nothing more pleasant than opening a motion, say for example a motion to dismiss, and seeing "I. THE PROSECUTION LEFT AN ELEMENT OUT OF COUNT 1; II. THIS ERROR VIOLATES THE NOTICE CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT; III. THE COURT'S ONLY OPTION IS TO DISMISS THE CASE."
I am not saying that I won't read motions that aren't formatted like this, but if they are done that way, they are significantly easier to follow, easier to see your arguments and thought process, and help everyone formulate a response/ruling. I would also prefer you to elaborate on previous courts' rulings and how they connect with the case. I believe you stated
failure to specify all elements of the offense in an information “generally constitutes a fatal defect." United States v. Keith, 605 F.2d 462, 464 (9th Cir. 1979).Nearly every time I have opened a motion, I have been slapped in the face with 3 words then 4 sentences of case law and citations, leaving me running to Justia.com to try to research what exactly this case is citing. Once I do that, I move my eyes a millimeter to the right and have to repeat the process over and over. It was my hope that quashing these long-winded citations would lead me straight to the main point (e.g. Count 1 leaves out the element of unconsented conduct, which violates the 6A, and must result in the CI being dismissed), but that didn't really happen.
urinal cakeits just funny how unwilling you are to actually have to be a lawyer for once
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:10 p.m.
Be nice to the defense attorney
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:10 p.m.
Refer to Discord rules in chamber-information
acerxtroThe only reason I wanted you to keep circuit law down to a minimum was so I can see your arguments. I believe you are doing a great job advocating for your client and ensuring the...
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:11 p.m.
It depends what section I'm in
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:11 p.m.
If I'm writing say the "Applicable Standard" section
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:12 p.m.
then you want to use only case law as thats wholly objective
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:12 p.m.
then into the argument you just piece it all together with the precedents
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:12 p.m.
if i wrote block paragraphs with no case law then it'd look like what i was saying wasn't supported by anything
impactiiiIf I'm writing say the "Applicable Standard" section
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:13 p.m.
yeah and this was exactly what i did in the failure to state an offense motion
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:13 p.m.
i went from the legal standard into argument
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:13 p.m.
thats just how motions typically go in real life
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:14 p.m.
you dont want to overtextend the standard because most judges are already familiar and dont need a complete breakdown
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:14 p.m.
overextend*
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:14 p.m. 
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:14 p.m.
above is the standard
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:15 p.m.
I would much prefer a ratio of 60:40, with arguments taking the majority. If circuit law is being cited (which I see you do often), I would also like to hear how it would apply to this case. SCOTUS precedent is different, yeah, since most judges are already familiar with many cases.
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:16 p.m.
It's just how they're written in real life
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:16 p.m.
I don't deviate from that standard
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:16 p.m.
If I broke down every single thing then it would actually be 20 pages of redundancy that didn't matter
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:16 p.m.
Correct
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:17 p.m.
like... why the 6th circuit agrees with the 2nd circuit that you can't amend an information as to substance
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:17 p.m.
Whereas I could just cite two quotes and it'd have the same effect
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:17 p.m.
Well both our rules & the federal rules allow an information to be amended for substance
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:18 p.m.
The 6A's notice clause is the primary concern with it, yeah, but that can be remedied easily
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:18 p.m.
The federal rule that prescribes amendments to substance is identical to our rule
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:18 p.m.
And the circuit commentary on it says that amendments to informations should not be made as to substance
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:18 p.m.
Either way
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:18 p.m.
Fatal defects in an information do require dismissal
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:19 p.m.
The court should've stopped and not even considered the amendments
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:19 p.m.
I am not sure such defects are considered fatal, or fatal enough to require dismissal
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:20 p.m.
Like failure to state an offense
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:20 p.m.
Which would be like omitting
an element
an element
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:20 p.m.
Well they only left 1 element out of each charge (iirc)
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:20 p.m.
Felony misconduct's errors were more egregious though
acerxtroWell they only left 1 element out of each charge (iirc)
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:20 p.m.
That's still a pretty big deal
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:21 p.m.
I was only upset because you said you agreed with me (and still agree) and then half-granted it in a way that wasn't really like... proper
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:21 p.m.
I agree that the errors were made
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:21 p.m.
but I disagree that dismissing both charges is the way to go
acerxtrobut I disagree that dismissing both charges is the way to go
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:22 p.m.
Do you have any precedent to support your position though
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:22 p.m.
There is already a way to fix the errors
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:22 p.m.
Something is wrong with the CI. The first step should be trying to fix it.
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:23 p.m.
If the prosecution tried to completely change the subject or upgrade charges, that'd be different
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:24 p.m.
Either way, if both charges were dismissed, the case would be dismissed without prejudice I believe,
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:24 p.m.
then the prosecution would amend the CI anyway and we'd be back at square 1
impactiiiThat's still a pretty big deal
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:24 p.m.U.S. v. Hooker , 841 F.2d 1225 (4th Cir. 1988) (holding that the "complete absence" of even one element "is a fatal defect"); accord United States v. Cina , 699 F.2d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 1983) and United States v. Moore , 185 F.2d 92, 94 (5th Cir. 1950)
acerxtroEither way, if both charges were dismissed, the case would be dismissed without prejudice I believe,
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:24 p.m.
Let me find something
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:25 p.m.
If it were to be dismissed with prejudice, then a prosecutor's careless error would result in a defendant essentially being exonerated for their crimes
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:25 p.m.
which could be extremely detrimental to society
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:25 p.m.
That is how it goes sometimes
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:26 p.m.
Not exaggerating
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:26 p.m.
It's my job and your job to make sure everything is fair
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:26 p.m.
Fairness includes the right to proper notice, which includes notice of all the elements of an offense
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:27 p.m.
That's inherent in both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:27 p.m.
As well as the right to build a proper defense from that notice
impactiiiFairness includes the right to proper notice, which includes notice of all the elements of an offense
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:30 p.m.
Correct, but such opinion has also been held in cases such as People v. Murray , 306 Ill. App. 3d 280 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999) ("Important public interests are involved in such a dismissal, and lack of diligence on the part of prosecutors should not automatically result in the defendant going free.")
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:30 p.m.
Fairness also extends to the state, though it is primarily centered around the defendant
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:31 p.m.
It would be without prejudice here
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:31 p.m.
Then the state could just amend the CI and refile
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:31 p.m.
But nonetheless, the idea behind it is to sanction the government for being careless
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:32 p.m.
and your client would be in the system even longer
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:32 p.m.
Allowing them to amend it is not a sanction
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:32 p.m.
But there are cases when the dismissal of an information with prejudice is warranted (like outrageous government conduct, selective prosecution, vindictive prosecution)
impactiiiBut there are cases when the dismissal of an information with prejudice is warranted (like outrageous government conduct, selective prosecution, vindictive prosecution)
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:32 p.m.
Unintentional errors that cause no meaningful prejudice to the defendant should not be handled the same way as these, yes.
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:33 p.m.
Their intent doesn't matter
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:33 p.m.
I think it is very important to note
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:33 p.m.
How can you prove they intentionally or unintentionally omitted it?
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:33 p.m.
It doesn't matter
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:34 p.m.
If the state engages in vindictive prosecution, the court would be significantly more willing to sanction and dismiss the case with prejudice,
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:34 p.m.
rather than other unintentional errors that weren't fact-checked.
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:34 p.m.
It still abridges the right to notice whether they meant to do it or not
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:35 p.m.
It'd be the same if they like
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:35 p.m.
forgot to disclose exculpatory evidence
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:35 p.m.
Though that's way worse
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:35 p.m.
Their intent doesn't matter
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:35 p.m.
There's an expectation and a consequence for that
impactiiiIt still abridges the right to notice whether they meant to do it or not
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:35 p.m.
Well we can add notice
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:35 p.m.
Because either way we'd be at the same place
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:35 p.m.
whether the state has to refile or not
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:35 p.m.
It doesn't really matter
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:36 p.m.
You agree with me on every point except sanctioning them through dismissal
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:36 p.m.
I believe such is too harsh for the mistake
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:36 p.m.
I would attribute such mistake to inexperience, rather than carelessness
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:36 p.m.
They probably would be offended by that
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:37 p.m.
But anyways
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:37 p.m.
I am sure the original prosecutor knows it to be true
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:37 p.m.
a more experienced prosecutor would have covered all elements
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:39 p.m.
All I'm saying is everything I've cited requires dismissal here
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:39 p.m.
This is beyond the norm and I think you're shifting the benefit of the doubt over to the State which is not how this system really works
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:40 p.m.
We are supposed to be the ones with the benefit of the doubt
acerxtroCorrect, but such opinion has also been held in cases such as People v. Murray , 306 Ill. App. 3d 280 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999) ("Important public interests are involved in such a dism...
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:40 p.m.
Also the whole point of this system is innocent until proven guilty
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:40 p.m.
The charges he is facing dont matter
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:40 p.m.
Hes not guilty of anything
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:41 p.m.
Correct, but we can all agree if someone such as the Boston Bomber was allowed to walk free due to an inexperienced prosecutor's mistake..
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:41 p.m.
that would be a miscarriage of justice.
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:41 p.m.
But the Boston Bomber is a convicted terrorist and your client is still observed as innocent by this court.
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:42 p.m.
Right I don't really appreciate the comparison but
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:42 p.m.
If every mistake resulted in dismissal,
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:42 p.m.
the justice system would be in shambles
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:42 p.m.
Not every mistake
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:42 p.m.
This mistake specifically
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:42 p.m.
The only possibly way I would consider dismissal is using it as a sanction
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:43 p.m.
Because the 6A Notice Clause part, while it is the leading reason action is needed, isn't enough to dismiss both charges (and subsequently the case)
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:44 p.m.
6A would be violated if the court, for instance, accepted an amendment of the elements 5 minutes before trial, then expected trial to continue
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:46 p.m.@impactiii @urinal cake CI v2 has been received by the court 
acerxtro6A would be violated if the court, for instance, accepted an amendment of the elements 5 minutes before trial, then expected trial to continue
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:46 p.m.
You just need to know that what you're doing is basically telling defense lawyers in the future not to file MTDs
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:47 p.m.
If we're in the pretrial period, they can motion to compel the state to amend the CI
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:47 p.m.
If we're closer to trial, then yeah, a MTD may suffice
acerxtroIf we're in the pretrial period, they can motion to compel the state to amend the CI
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:47 p.m.
That just doesn't align with any of the relevant precedent
acerxtroIf we're closer to trial, then yeah, a MTD may suffice
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:47 p.m.
I filed that motion on the 13th
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:47 p.m.
Trial was supposed to be on the 16th
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:47 p.m.
The second was on the 17th
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:47 p.m.
Since we had an extension
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:48 p.m.
I am inclined to extend the pretrial period even more due to the insane amount of motions, but I believe the rules only permit an extension up to +10d
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:49 p.m.
A large amount of time has been used up by the court in its deliberation of the motions
acerxtroIf we're in the pretrial period, they can motion to compel the state to amend the CI
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:49 p.m.
This a really awful suggestion I just have to say it. No one should be writing the CI for the state. There's a reason why every circuit agrees that dismissal is the way to go
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:49 p.m.
"Hey guys... um... you forgot to do this... can you please put it in there? thanks..."
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:49 p.m.
Hm
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:51 p.m.
I see
impactiii"Hey guys... um... you forgot to do this... can you please put it in there? thanks..."
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:52 p.m.
This would kind of be like an inverse notice clause
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:52 p.m.
Asking the state to inform us
acerxtroI am inclined to extend the pretrial period even more due to the insane amount of motions, but I believe the rules only permit an extension up to +10d
urinal cake 2024-10-21 06:53 p.m.
impactiiiThis would kind of be like an inverse notice clause
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:54 p.m.
I have not considered that(edited)
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:54 p.m.
And that’s why the circuits go with dismissal
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:54 p.m.
that would be why
acerxtrothat would be why
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:56 p.m.
And that’s basically what we had to do here
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:56 p.m.
So knowing all of that
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:56 p.m.
What do you want to do
urinal cake 2024-10-21 06:57 p.m.
what exactly are u arguing
urinal cake 2024-10-21 06:57 p.m.
so i can counter it
urinal cake 2024-10-21 06:57 p.m.
i dont wanna read all that
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:57 p.m.
read all of that
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:57 p.m.
Read it
urinal cake 2024-10-21 06:57 p.m.
no
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:57 p.m.
Well
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:58 p.m.
I believe our brain cells have aligned with one another’s
urinal cake 2024-10-21 06:58 p.m.
woopty doo
acerxtroIf we're in the pretrial period, they can motion to compel the state to amend the CI
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:58 p.m.
Actually the MTD had the same effect here
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:59 p.m.
And I already told you why that is bad
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:59 p.m.
If I remember you did compel the state to amend it
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:59 p.m.
But we still have this weird inverse notice clause thing going on
impactiiiAnd that’s why the circuits go with dismissal
impactiii 2024-10-21 06:59 p.m.
.
acerxtro 2024-10-21 06:59 p.m.
Ok
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:00 p.m.
well hold on a minute
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:00 p.m.
if we want to get into the notice clause and its purpose
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:00 p.m.
its designed to ensure that the defendant be fully informed of the charges against him
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:01 p.m.
by pointing out an insufficiency, the defendant is just exercising their right to be properly notified
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:01 p.m.
fixing the insufficiency helps fulfill the original intent of the clause
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:01 p.m.
it isnt like we're completely banking off of your observation that something might be missing
impactiii 2024-10-21 07:01 p.m.
That still raises the issue of what happened here. A defendant shouldn’t be telling the State to inform him
impactiiiAnd that’s why the circuits go with dismissal
impactiii 2024-10-21 07:01 p.m.
Ad nauseam reference
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:02 p.m.
a defendant's right to point out a deficiency in a criminal information packet is an exercise of their const right to due process
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:02 p.m.
when a defendant identifies an insufficiency, they arent usurping the power or duty of a prosecutor
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:02 p.m.
theyre just safeguarding their right to be properly informed lol
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:02 p.m.
the constitution gives defendants the right to contest anything that infringes upon their right to a fair trial
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:02 p.m.
and us fixing it is us remedying that
impactiii 2024-10-21 07:02 p.m.
Okay that’s genuinely just buzz word yap
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:02 p.m.
takes one to know one
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:02 p.m.
doesnt it
impactiii 2024-10-21 07:03 p.m.@acerxtro What do you want to do?
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:03 p.m.
guy has the audacity to talk about yap
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:03 p.m.
impactiiiThis a really awful suggestion I just have to say it. No one should be writing the CI for the state. There's a reason why every circuit agrees that dismissal is the way to go
acerxtro 2024-10-21 07:10 p.m.
Create a draft of a new ruling dismissing the case without prejudice based on the arguments had today, specifically the "inverse notice clause" and how the defense should not have to ask the state to inform you, it should be done automatically
acerxtro 2024-10-21 07:10 p.m.
I will determine what we'll do after that
impactiii 2024-10-21 07:11 p.m.
Document or discord message
impactiiiDocument or discord message
acerxtro 2024-10-21 07:12 p.m.
Discord message
acerxtro 2024-10-21 07:13 p.m.
Refer here for examples
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1279836211703447614/1297743820716380180
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1279836211703447614/1297743820716380180
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:13 p.m.
that ruling is a soft spot for sado
acerxtroDiscord message
impactiii 2024-10-21 07:50 p.m.ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NEXUVZ’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Upon consideration of Defendant Nexuvz’s Motions to Dismiss Count One of the information as unconstitutionally vague and Count Two for failure to state an offense, the arguments presented by counsel, and the applicable law:
1. Defendant Nexuvz’s Motion to Dismiss Count One of the information is GRANTED. Count One, which charges Defendant Nexuvz with Felony Misconduct under 1 M.S.C. § 1302, is hereby DISMISSED.
2. Defendant Nexuvz’s Motion to Dismiss Count Two of the information is GRANTED. Count Two, which charges Defendant Nexuvz with Battery under 1 M.S.C. § 2304, is hereby DISMISSED.
3. The Court finds that the information fails to provide fair notice to Defendant Nexuvz of the charges against him in both counts, thereby violating his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Sixth Amendment's Notice Clause guarantees the defendant the right to know the nature of the charges against them, which includes having clear notice of all elements of the offenses. The defendant's counsel aptly dubbed it the "inverse notice clause," asserting that the defense should not have to demand that the State to properly charge an offense or an element. Indeed, it is the State's responsibility to provide comprehensive notice automatically; as here, failure to provide adequate notice warrants dismissal.
4. As both counts have been dismissed, the Court finds that the case against Defendant Nexuvz is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed,
Honorable Judge acerxtro
District Court
Upon consideration of Defendant Nexuvz’s Motions to Dismiss Count One of the information as unconstitutionally vague and Count Two for failure to state an offense, the arguments presented by counsel, and the applicable law:
1. Defendant Nexuvz’s Motion to Dismiss Count One of the information is GRANTED. Count One, which charges Defendant Nexuvz with Felony Misconduct under 1 M.S.C. § 1302, is hereby DISMISSED.
2. Defendant Nexuvz’s Motion to Dismiss Count Two of the information is GRANTED. Count Two, which charges Defendant Nexuvz with Battery under 1 M.S.C. § 2304, is hereby DISMISSED.
3. The Court finds that the information fails to provide fair notice to Defendant Nexuvz of the charges against him in both counts, thereby violating his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Sixth Amendment's Notice Clause guarantees the defendant the right to know the nature of the charges against them, which includes having clear notice of all elements of the offenses. The defendant's counsel aptly dubbed it the "inverse notice clause," asserting that the defense should not have to demand that the State to properly charge an offense or an element. Indeed, it is the State's responsibility to provide comprehensive notice automatically; as here, failure to provide adequate notice warrants dismissal.
4. As both counts have been dismissed, the Court finds that the case against Defendant Nexuvz is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice.
Signed,
Honorable Judge acerxtro
District Court
impactiii 2024-10-21 07:50 p.m.
I didn't want to make it too long
impactiii 2024-10-21 07:50 p.m.
Or if you wanted it more detailed
acerxtro 2024-10-21 07:50 p.m.
do paragraph form
acerxtro 2024-10-21 07:50 p.m.
and yeah
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:50 p.m.
Please do not forge the Honorable Judge's signature.
taxi 2024-10-21 07:57 p.m.
what
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:57 p.m.
it isnt dismissed
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:57 p.m.
you are relieved @taxi
urinal cake 2024-10-21 07:57 p.m.
Stay out!
taxi 2024-10-21 07:58 p.m.
I’m still main counsel!!
impactiii 2024-10-21 08:12 p.m.ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Defendant Nexuvz’s Motion to Dismiss Count One as Unconstitutionally Vague (Mot Seq. 6) and his Motion to Count Two for Failure to State an Offense (Mot Seq. 4) areGRANTED in accordance with this Order. The information is DISMISSED on consideration of all of the arguments set forth therein, and on the following grounds:
I. Count One of the Information is Unconstitutionally Vague
Count One of the information, which charges Defendant Nexuvz with abuse of position under 1 M.S.C. § 1302, is dismissed as unconstitutionally vague. The information does not sufficiently inform the defendant of the specific nature of the alleged misconduct, failing to explain how his role as an on-duty officer contributed to the purported abuse. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, requiring that an information “sufficiently apprise[] the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet.”Russell v. United States , 369 U.S. 749, 763 (1962). The lack of detail leaves Defendant Nexuvz uncertain about the specifics of the charges against him, violating his constitutional rights.
Additionally, a cryptic charge fails to provide the necessary clarity, as it requires a defendant to proceed to trial without a clearly defined central issue. This situation may lead to a conviction based on vague allegations, which is constitutionally impermissible. As articulated inO'Connor v. United States , 240 F.2d 404, 405 (D.C. Cir. 1956), an information that lacks clear detail allows the prosecution excessive leeway in filling gaps through conjecture. The current information does not articulate how Mr. Nexuvz’s actions amounted to an abuse of his position, which is a violation of the established legal standard.
Without clear articulation of the accusations, Count One does not meet the requirements set forth under the Sixth Amendment and must therefore be dismissed for vagueness.
II. Count Two of the Information Fails to State an Offense
Count Two of the information, which charges Defendant Nexuvz with Battery under 1 M.S.C. § 2304, is dismissed for failure to state an offense. The information does not sufficiently allege a crucial element of battery: the lack of consent from the victim. To secure a conviction for battery under 1 M.S.C. § 2304, it is essential that the information explicitly allege that the defendant willfully and maliciously harmed another player "without that player's consent." The omission of this key element renders the charge deficient, as the law clearly requires that all essential elements be included in the information. As articulated inUnited States v. Cecil , 608 F.2d 1294, 1296 (9th Cir. 1979), the information must provide a detailed description of the charges to ensure that the court can determine their sufficiency.
Moreover, it is well established that courts cannot “infer” elements that are not explicitly stated in the charging document. The requirement that all elements of a criminal offense be plainly articulated is rooted in the principle that “the definition of the elements of a criminal offense is entrusted to the legislature.”Liparota v. United States , 471 U.S. 419, 424 (1985). Here, the information does not adequately inform Defendant Nexuvz of the allegations against him, failing to meet the necessary standard for clarity and specificity. As stated in United States v. Spruill , 118 F.3d 221, 227 (4th Cir. 1997), the failure to include an essential element is not a harmless oversight but rather a "fatal defect" that warrants dismissal.
The State’s failure to allege the lack of consent undermines the validity of the charge, necessitating the dismissal of Count Two.
Defendant Nexuvz’s Motion to Dismiss Count One as Unconstitutionally Vague (Mot Seq. 6) and his Motion to Count Two for Failure to State an Offense (Mot Seq. 4) are
Count One of the information, which charges Defendant Nexuvz with abuse of position under 1 M.S.C. § 1302, is dismissed as unconstitutionally vague. The information does not sufficiently inform the defendant of the specific nature of the alleged misconduct, failing to explain how his role as an on-duty officer contributed to the purported abuse. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, requiring that an information “sufficiently apprise[] the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet.”
Additionally, a cryptic charge fails to provide the necessary clarity, as it requires a defendant to proceed to trial without a clearly defined central issue. This situation may lead to a conviction based on vague allegations, which is constitutionally impermissible. As articulated in
Without clear articulation of the accusations, Count One does not meet the requirements set forth under the Sixth Amendment and must therefore be dismissed for vagueness.
Count Two of the information, which charges Defendant Nexuvz with Battery under 1 M.S.C. § 2304, is dismissed for failure to state an offense. The information does not sufficiently allege a crucial element of battery: the lack of consent from the victim. To secure a conviction for battery under 1 M.S.C. § 2304, it is essential that the information explicitly allege that the defendant willfully and maliciously harmed another player "without that player's consent." The omission of this key element renders the charge deficient, as the law clearly requires that all essential elements be included in the information. As articulated in
Moreover, it is well established that courts cannot “infer” elements that are not explicitly stated in the charging document. The requirement that all elements of a criminal offense be plainly articulated is rooted in the principle that “the definition of the elements of a criminal offense is entrusted to the legislature.”
The State’s failure to allege the lack of consent undermines the validity of the charge, necessitating the dismissal of Count Two.
impactiii 2024-10-21 08:13 p.m.III. The State’s Duty to Provide Comprehensive Notice
The defense should not be required to solicit the State to properly charge an offense or its elements, whether through a motion to compel or a motion to dismiss. It is fundamentally the responsibility of the prosecution to provide clear and comprehensive notice of the charges against a defendant. The Sixth Amendment establishes the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusations, which includes the obligation to delineate all essential elements of the offenses clearly. As the Supreme Court held inCole v. Arkansas , this notice is a constitutional right that must be adhered to in all criminal proceedings. 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948) ("notice of the specific charge . . . [is] among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts.").
In this case, the State’s failure to adequately charge the offense of battery and to allege the critical element of lack of consent signifies a breach of this obligation. The defense should not be placed in the position of having to navigate ambiguities or gaps in the State’s allegations, as doing so undermines the principle of fundamental fairness enshrined in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The requirement for the defense to solicit clarification or detail from the prosecution would effectively create what the defendant has creatively termed an "inverse notice clause," where the burden of ensuring clarity falls unjustly on the defendant. Courts have consistently held that the omission of essential elements in the charging document cannot be rectified by the defense seeking clarification or engaging in extensive legal wrangling.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Honorable acerxtro
Mayflower District Court Judge
The defense should not be required to solicit the State to properly charge an offense or its elements, whether through a motion to compel or a motion to dismiss. It is fundamentally the responsibility of the prosecution to provide clear and comprehensive notice of the charges against a defendant. The Sixth Amendment establishes the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusations, which includes the obligation to delineate all essential elements of the offenses clearly. As the Supreme Court held in
In this case, the State’s failure to adequately charge the offense of battery and to allege the critical element of lack of consent signifies a breach of this obligation. The defense should not be placed in the position of having to navigate ambiguities or gaps in the State’s allegations, as doing so undermines the principle of fundamental fairness enshrined in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The requirement for the defense to solicit clarification or detail from the prosecution would effectively create what the defendant has creatively termed an "inverse notice clause," where the burden of ensuring clarity falls unjustly on the defendant. Courts have consistently held that the omission of essential elements in the charging document cannot be rectified by the defense seeking clarification or engaging in extensive legal wrangling.
Mayflower District Court Judge
impactiii 2024-10-21 08:13 p.m.@acerxtro
impactiii 2024-10-21 08:15 p.m.ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE AND TWO GRANTED in accordance with this Order. The information...
impactiii 2024-10-21 08:15 p.m.
google doc for copy and paste
impactiiiacerxtro 2024-10-21 10:16 p.m.
only include reasoning for changing the ruling to a dismissal from CI amending
acerxtroonly include reasoning for changing the ruling to a dismissal from CI amending
impactiii 2024-10-21 10:17 p.m.
what do you want me to get rid of
impactiiiwhat do you want me to get rid of
acerxtro 2024-10-21 10:17 p.m.
everything
acerxtroeverything
impactiii 2024-10-21 10:18 p.m.
"The defense should not be required to solicit the State to properly charge an offense or its elements, whether through a motion to compel or a motion to dismiss. It is fundamentally the responsibility of the prosecution to provide clear and comprehensive notice of the charges against a defendant. The Sixth Amendment establishes the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusations, which includes the obligation to delineate all essential elements of the offenses clearly. As the Supreme Court held in Cole v. Arkansas, this notice is a constitutional right that must be adhered to in all criminal proceedings. 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948) ("notice of the specific charge . . . [is] among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts.")."
I can hinge it off of this
I can hinge it off of this
impactiii 2024-10-21 10:19 p.m.
Otherwise I am not sure what you mean and I'd have to defer to what you had in mind so long as we're still on the same page
impactiii 2024-10-21 10:20 p.m.
either way this ruling isnt wrong
impactiii 2024-10-21 10:21 p.m.
you wouldn't risk an appeal here
urinal cake 2024-10-21 10:27 p.m.
this is sad
acerxtroeverything
impactiii 2024-10-21 10:32 p.m.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Defendant Nexuvz’s Motion to Dismiss Count One as Unconstitutionally Vague (Mot Seq. 6) and his Motion to Count Two for Failure to State an Offense (Mot Seq. 4) are GRANTED in accordance with this Order. The information is DISMISSED on consideration of all of the arguments set forth therein, and on the following grounds:
I. Dismissal Based on Amendments to Criminal Information
Dismissal is warranted because the issues raised by the defendant in the Motion to Dismiss, or even if addressed through another remedy suggested by the court, such as a motion to compel an amendment of the information, effectively require the defense to tell the State what to write. This would place the burden on the defendant to solicit the State to properly inform them of the charges.
II. The "Inverse Notice Clause" Predicament
As stated above, the defense should not be required to solicit the State to properly charge an offense or its elements, whether through a motion to compel or a motion to dismiss. It is fundamentally the responsibility of the prosecution to provide clear and comprehensive notice of the charges against a defendant. The requirement for the defense to solicit clarification or detail from the prosecution would effectively create what the defendant has creatively termed an "inverse notice clause," where the burden of ensuring clarity falls unjustly on the defendant. Courts have consistently held that the omission of essential elements in the charging document cannot be rectified by the defense seeking clarification or engaging in extensive legal wrangling.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Honorable acerxtro
Mayflower District Court Judge
Defendant Nexuvz’s Motion to Dismiss Count One as Unconstitutionally Vague (Mot Seq. 6) and his Motion to Count Two for Failure to State an Offense (Mot Seq. 4) are GRANTED in accordance with this Order. The information is DISMISSED on consideration of all of the arguments set forth therein, and on the following grounds:
I. Dismissal Based on Amendments to Criminal Information
Dismissal is warranted because the issues raised by the defendant in the Motion to Dismiss, or even if addressed through another remedy suggested by the court, such as a motion to compel an amendment of the information, effectively require the defense to tell the State what to write. This would place the burden on the defendant to solicit the State to properly inform them of the charges.
II. The "Inverse Notice Clause" Predicament
As stated above, the defense should not be required to solicit the State to properly charge an offense or its elements, whether through a motion to compel or a motion to dismiss. It is fundamentally the responsibility of the prosecution to provide clear and comprehensive notice of the charges against a defendant. The requirement for the defense to solicit clarification or detail from the prosecution would effectively create what the defendant has creatively termed an "inverse notice clause," where the burden of ensuring clarity falls unjustly on the defendant. Courts have consistently held that the omission of essential elements in the charging document cannot be rectified by the defense seeking clarification or engaging in extensive legal wrangling.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Honorable acerxtro
Mayflower District Court Judge
impactiii 2024-10-21 10:32 p.m.
I'm not sure what you want me to write
impactiiiyou wouldn't risk an appeal here
acerxtro 2024-10-21 11:45 p.m.
don't think fear of an appeal has anything to do with this ruling, or any ruling for that matter
acerxtro 2024-10-21 11:46 p.m.
I decide my rulings based on the arguments presented
acerxtro 2024-10-21 11:56 p.m.@impactiii @taxi @urinal cake
Case has been dismissed without prejudice.
See ruling on the trello card.
https://trello.com/c/qU1lpiZ9/87-state-of-mayflower-v-nexuvz(edited)
Case has been dismissed without prejudice.
See ruling on the trello card.
https://trello.com/c/qU1lpiZ9/87-state-of-mayflower-v-nexuvz(edited)
Exported 1061 messages